[OpenSER-Devel] Request for comments: new routing module

Henning Westerholt henning.westerholt at 1und1.de
Wed Aug 1 09:57:41 CEST 2007


On Tuesday 31 July 2007, Klaus Darilion wrote:
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
> > On 07/31/07 19:10, Dan Pascu wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 31 July 2007, Henning Westerholt wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday 31 July 2007, Klaus Darilion wrote:
> >>>> Thus, for me it is ok if it is included to openser.
> >>>
> >>> Ok, do you have a suggesting for a name? Perhaps "route" as module
> >>> name, and prefix the functions with "r_"?
> >>
> >> "routing" as module name sounds better IMO.
> >
> > I had no time to review the description of the module, however, for me,
> > using this kind of name related to route/routing will introduce
> > confusions discussing and referring configuration file (we have "route"
> > blocks, we refer a lot to "routing" logic), perhaps a name that should
> > make clear a difference would be much better -- just my opinion (e.g.,
> > sprouting, as I understand already has similar name).
>
> I agree with Daniel. I immediately thought about record-routing/loose
> routing and that i might confuse users. What about "prefixbasedrouting"?
>
> I couldn't find a better one :-(

Thanks for the suggestions so far! Ok, routing is no option.. Well, as the 
module is primarly used to do some routing based on the carrier of the user, 
i'll probably choose "carrierrouting" as name and "cr_" as prefix for the 
functions.

Cheers,

Henning



More information about the Devel mailing list