[sr-dev] AVPs in replies?

[Daniel-Constantin Mierla]

On 12/10/09 12:56 PM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
>
>   >  Andrei, instead of having K compat mode, as global parameter, I would
>   >  prefer to have per transaction function:
>   >
>   >  t_lock_onreply()
>   >
>   >  Gives more flexibility.
>
> daniel,
>
> does this mean that i would need to call t_lock_onreply() as the first
> thing in onreply_route?
>
> if so, i would prefer a global parameter that defaults to locking that
> script writer could override if/when needed.  otherwise script writing
> would become too error-prone
>    
I was thinking of being able to control how the reply routes are 
executed per transaction, not globally. I think my second proposal is 
better:

t_on_reply("1"); - run onreply_route[1] with no locking (default, same 
syntax as now) for current transaction.
t_on_reply("1", "0"); - run onreply_route[1] with no locking for current 
transaction.
t_on_reply("1", "1"); -  run onreply_route[1] under lock for current 
transaction.

In some cases, there is no need to lock for replies (no avp processing), 
therefore why to have it locked.

Cheers,
Daniel

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