[Devel] CVS commitlog: sip-server/modules/domain README domain.c domain_mod.c sip-server/modules/domain/doc domain_user.sgml

[Dan Pascu]

On Saturday 30 September 2006 23:04, Juha Heinanen wrote:
> Dan Pascu writes:
>  > > - in w_is_domain_local, why do you use xl_printf_s to get the
>  > > domain instead of (i would assume) faster xl_get_spec_value?
>  >
>  > Mainly because I didn't know about the latter.
>
> that is used in other modules that need access to avp value.  they use
> xl_parse_spec to parse the pseudo variable in fixup and then
> xl_get_spec_value when value of pseudo variable is accessed by config
> functions.

Well, the code I used as inspiration (the rr module) used xl_printf_s so 
this is what I ended using. I wasn't aware of the other possibility until 
you mentioned it.

>
>  > Feel free to replace it as
>  > long as you think it's better and it doesn't change the behavior.
>
> i don't know if using xl_parse_spec changes behavior.  it accepts any
> pseudo variable as parameter.  it may not handle string parameter, but
> you can always assign a string to an avp.  also, i don't know what
> would be the use case of asking in config file if a fixed string value
> is local domain.

The handling of fixed strings was not intended in the first place, it was 
a side effect of what xl_printf_s accepted, so I thought it's worth 
mentioning in the docs so that people won't be surprised by differences 
in behavior compared to documentation. However I agree with you, I do not 
see a use case of fixed string domain testing either and if it's removed 
I don't think anyone will ask for it. I also don't see (at least for the 
moment) a use case for the other ability of xl_printf_s (to combine 
multiple AVPs and PVs printf like). Taking these 2 out, I guess in the 
other aspects they must be pretty much the same.

-- 
Dan