[sr-dev] AVPs in replies?

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

On 12/10/09 12:32 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Andrei, instead of having K compat mode, as global parameter, I would 
> prefer to have per transaction function:
>
> t_lock_onreply()
or have t_on_reply(...) accepting a second parameter that indicates the 
locking status for onreply_route execution.

Cheers,
Daniel

>
> Gives more flexibility.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
> On 12/10/09 12:16 PM, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
>> On Dec 10, 2009 at 12:57, Juha Heinanen<jh at tutpro.com>  wrote:
>>> Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul writes:
>>>
>>> >  What I'm afraid is that executing the reply route under lock might
>>> >  introduce some deadlocks (it is possible that some functions that 
>>> are now
>>> >  allowed to be executed from the onreply route would cause 
>>> problems, I
>>> >  haven't checked all of them).
>>>
>>> what could those be?  i test/set flags/avps/vars and call functions 
>>> that
>>> rewrite some parts of the message, like contact uri and sdp.
>> tm functions or functions that use tm api and try to lock replies (lock
>> the transaction reply_lock). I don't know of any and I don't think we'll
>> have any problems, but I haven't checked everything.
>> All the k modules functions that worked in k with the reply avp mode
>> will work with sr too so this leaves possible problems only in
>> modules_s.
>> Everything you mentioned above won't cause any problems.
>>> >  The long term solution would be to lock only the avps and only 
>>> when used,
>>> >  but it requires lots of changes and testing and I'm not sure it 
>>> would be
>>> >  ready/good enough for 3.0.
>>>
>>> not for 3.0, which, in my opinion, we should get out before end of this
>>> year.
>> Yes, I agree.
>>
>> Andrei
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sr-dev mailing list
>> sr-dev at lists.sip-router.org
>> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
>

-- 
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
* http://www.asipto.com/