[OpenSER-Devel] SF.net SVN: openser: [4329] trunk/modules/benchmark/benchmark.c

[Bogdan-Andrei Iancu]

Hi Daniel,

We do not have to overlook the fact that an open source project is a 
result of common contributions from multiple people. So, it is about 
more than one person and we should not have a selfish view on the matter 
- maybe some new code does not solve anything for you, but certainly it 
does for other people. As I detailed in the email announcing this 
functionality, this new code addresses the multiple needs, coming from 
multiple people.

New functionalities and features are among the main definitions of the 
project, so any new commit, even before last minute is welcome - as time 
as it does not break anything.

With the risk of repeating myslef, if you have some technical issue with 
this new code, I'm open to discussions. But please, before that, try to 
understand what this new functionality is about - if you have 
un-clarities please let me how, I will work them out with you. Maybe 
diving a bit into the code will help you formulating an opinion.

But just to bring more light (as I see it is a big misunderstanding on 
what this route is about) : This route is TM specific and is used only 
for the stateful requests that are internally generated by TM (with no 
UAS side); it has nothing to do with the core or with any reply or 
anything else; it provides a mechanism to catch in script requests 
generated by openser, requests which otherwise will be totally 
transparent - for more, again, please refer to the info email I 
previously sent.

Opinions may vary, but in a truly fair and respectful environment, 
applying labels to other people work just because you personally do not 
agree or find useful is not constructive at all.

Regards,
Bogdan

Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
> Hello Henning,
>
> On 06/06/08 20:42, Henning Westerholt wrote:
>> On Friday 06 June 2008, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
>>  
>>> [..]
>>> I have to second Henning here in regard to a proper discussion may lead
>>> to better solution. Maybe I am missing something, but from what I have
>>> seen in the description and the code, binding this route to TM solve
>>> just few of the demands. It is called after the buffer of the 
>>> message to
>>> be sent is built.
>>>
>>> IMO such route shall be available for all messages sent by openser, so
>>> we get access in it to what is going to be sent on the network. There
>>> are solutions to detect that the message is locally generated (e.g.,
>>> only one via header), to decide there what to do. Apart of the benefits
>>> brought now, siptrace will work for all messages, we can get make
>>> available the destination ip and port, therefore filtering is more
>>> flexible, also logging/accounting get access to this information.
>>>
>>> I believe that this is a real topic for discussion, and if it is really
>>> important, we can postpone one or two days the freeze for the right
>>> decision. Leaving a half solution for a full release is not a right
>>> approach.
>>>     
>>
>> Hello Daniel,
>>
>> i agree here to you, of course. But i think that further delaying of 
>> the freeze is also not a good solution. So i think we'll probably 
>> need to live with this solution for 1.4.
>>   
> by midnight I can have lot of new code pushed in to the tree, which 
> can solve couple of my issues, so this is not the point here. 
> Committing something wrong just before freeze does not mean we have to 
> live with it. Doing major changes in the last minute is exposed to 
> further delays.
>
> I really do not see the full benefits of that route as it is now, just 
> placing that code in another file, with a bit of caring some other 
> aspects solves lot of other demands requested by users, fixes some 
> existing limitations, by not dropping anything that code provides now.
>
> If in the future, such route is going to be bound to TM by some 
> specific hooks, then it is time to introduce it there. I think 
> renaming it in send_route, or eventually having two of them: 
> request_send_route and reply_send_route, with barely same code but in 
> core, is better.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
>
>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Henning
>>
>>   
>