[OpenSER-Devel] discussion: issues with local_route

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

On 06/24/08 14:33, Dan Pascu wrote:
> 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.
Either you don't understand what I am saying with above and below 
phrases, or I don't understand what you are still asking.

As said, let's move on and chose a direction. If for you solves the 
accounting of self generated messages, for me breaks the pseudo-variable 
engine, accounting, logging and routing. But we are not alone here. I am 
going to fix what is broken in my side of code in any of the variants.

Daniel



>>  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.
>>     
>
>   

-- 
http://www.asipto.com