[OpenSER-Devel] discussion: issues with local_route

[Dan Pascu]

On Tuesday 24 June 2008, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
> On 06/24/08 13:10, Dan Pascu wrote:
> > On Tuesday 24 June 2008, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
> >>> What exactly is broken? If I run openser with my 1.3 script will it
> >>> work exactly the same or not?
> >>
> >> Could you please review the messages in the beginning of this email
> >> thread? I listed couple of them there, giving examples and details.
> >
> > I've reviewed it and I've seen nothing broken if local_route is not
> > used at all,
>
> Then I believe that not running openser will solve all bugs, nothing
> will go wrong. This discussion goes aside the topic. If you consider
> that doing operations to a message and affecting a completely different
> message is not broken and critical because one has the choice not to
> use those functions, then I cannot comment more on this. Let me know
> how I can avoid printing in accounting or xlog the wrong branch set or
> branch flags inside local_route.

Those issues were already addressed by Bogdan and they can be easily fixed 
by a save/restore or a copy/update approach depending on the situation.

> Let's go on and decide what to do, as I mentioned in another thread.
> Either disable local_route or let developers choice to fix their code
> that was not designed for the nested contexts architecture.

Again, please provide an example of something that is breaking the 
architecture, something that cannot be easily fixed and I'm all with you 
to include this in ifdefs and disable it by default. But please provide 
some concrete example, otherwise all this will remain at buzzword level 
and we'll get nowhere trying to solve it. I'm not absurd and I won't 
advocate to push something harmfull into 1.4, but so far I've not seen 
anything that would suggest that things are as bad as you suggest. I've 
only seen about 2 bugs that are easy to fix, stuff that is ignored in 
local_route because it makes no sense there (much like other stuff that 
is ignored or gives errors in reply or error routes when used) and the 
fact that the functionality is incomplete and can be extended in the 
future. But none of these serve as an argument against it IMO.

> I am fine 
> with both, but I guess half of the functionalities of openser will not
> be available in local_route if we go for the second choice. I prefer to
> focus on fixing the other issues rather thinking of workarounds for
> local_route, so I will disable it in my code, at root level, I won't go
> through entire source code, meaning that functionalities that can be
> potentially right won't be available.

-- 
Dan