[sr-dev] 3 Comments on the New Dialog Module Design

[Iñaki Baz Castillo]

2010/3/19 Edson - Lists <4lists at gmail.com>:
> After read the new proposal, i liked it and seems almost ok. Indeed i have 3
> comments:
>
> 1) in the dialog_in table, is stated that sflags is a row/field in doubt.
> I'm also in doubt, since, from my POV, all necessary flags for caller
> communication is already known by other module parms/flags. Could somebody
> elaborate a little the necessity of this row/field?

I've the same doubt :)
Hope sombody caould clarify it.


> 2) the relations between dialog_in and dialog_out are 1:n or am i wrong? So,
> why, in the dialog_out table, is it necessary to keep the caller_route_set
> (even optionally)??? Aren't all this info kept on the dialog_in structure,
> since is equal to all dialog_out??? As 1 INVITE could result in many
> dailog_out (legs), and caller info is shared with all generated dialog_out
> legs, isn't this info more suitable on the dialog_in structure???

Same question already received by other member of the list. I'll fix
it right now (already done in fact).


> 3) in section "Dialog state for dialog_in and dialog_out", statement (2) is
> not clear. To me if at least one dialog_out is in early state, dialog_in is
> steal 'alive' and could not be changed to terminated state. Am I wrong???

You are right, fixed now.


Thanks a lot!



-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc at aliax.net>