[sr-dev] AVPs in replies?

[Henning Westerholt]

On Donnerstag, 10. Dezember 2009, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
> > 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.

Hey Daniel,

if i understand Andrei correctly then this is only a short term solution until 
the correct implementation is done. So for now i think its better to go only 
with the kamailio compatibility/ global option way, instead of introducing a 
new parameter for a tm function which needs to be mainained and deprecated 
eventually again. I doubt a bit that the additional complexity in script and 
code is really worth the effort, given today multi-core CPU servers.

Regards,

Henning
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-dev/attachments/20091210/7691c55b/attachment-0001.htm>