[Serdev] SER architectural decisions - was: So who/what is SER for, anyway?

[Dragos Vingarzan]

Olle E Johansson wrote:
> Well, the same can be said for Asterisk. It's a problem with Open
> Source, that
> it keeps growing, hacks are laid on top of other hacks and there's a
> shortage of resources for a re-start. In some cases, it happens through a
> fork, in some cases within the project - like Apache or JabberD.

Yes, this happens a lot, but when there is a clear and independent
leader, maybe he could push big changes, cut branches, create new ones,
etc. When there are many, some of them would certainly have other
interests and would want to keep the current tree as it is. Why break
something that works just fine for some, right? But my impression is
that too many core developers are just happy with SER and its position
now to accept something really new, like a direction change. Maybe some
developers are too afraid that the new version would not be accepted and
used by the community if at the beginning it won't be on the par with
the old one... Am I wrong?

But hey, what is the great thing in having a free proxy so optimized
that can handle millions of users with the costs of a normal server? So
that you can save money and then invest it into doing a lot of efforts
for replicating states and assuring something close to 99.999%? I think
that this replication and carrier-grade feature should be in the core if
the core handles so many cps, or else the numbers are totally
irrelevant. So this is something else that I am not happy about related
to the architecture - reliability is provided by users and it is often
hidden from others (although some "best practices" surface from time to
time).


-Dragos