[Kamailio-Devel] SIP reply

[Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul]

On Nov 25, 2008 at 19:06, Daniel-Constantin Mierla <miconda at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/25/08 18:51, Klaus Darilion wrote:
> > Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> in relation with this bug:
> >>
> >> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2105813&group_id=139143&atid=743020 
> >>
> >>
> >> we should get to a conclusion, so it gets fixed soon and tested till 
> >> next release.
> >>
> >> I would go for a function in TM that will use sl module send reply if 
> >> the transaction does not exist. Other opinions?
> >
> > What about importing the signaling module from opensips? It is a 
> > wrapper which uses either tm or sl module for the reply, depending on 
> > if a transaction was created or not.
> I see no point of a new module, I suggested tm as most of the modules 
> affected use tm API anyhow, so they do not need to bind to two modules.
> 
> The other option of doing it in sl might be easier from the point of 
> view of changes, they already use this module to send the reply, so 
> would be transparent for the existing code.
> 
> At the end, I think we can do it in both modules, so configs and rest of 
> modules stay the same...

I think creating a new reply function or modifying t_reply() will only
lead to more confusion (e.g.: use the new t_reply_with_sl_fallback()
 and after that going stateful => tm will not know anything about the
  stateless reply => unexpected behaviour in 90% of the cases).
Also I don't think is a good idea to create a new function just to
handle some corner cases, when you can handle them with minimal effort
using existing functions.