[sr-dev] new pv for presence subscriptions

[Luis Azedo]

Hi Daniel,

agree, in this case i think $subs(...) or $sub(...) would make more sense,
$subs(presententy)
$subs(state)

thoughts?

________________________________
From: sr-dev [sr-dev-bounces at lists.sip-router.org] on behalf of Daniel-Constantin Mierla [miconda at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 6:54 AM
To: Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List
Subject: Re: [sr-dev] new pv for presence subscriptions

Hello,

it is ok, but I would go to create a new class of variables, because more can be needed in the future from presence details.

I think you can go for $pres(uri) for this case, which will allow other $pres(xyz) in the future.

Cheers,
Daniel

On 23/03/15 13:26, Luis Azedo wrote:
Hi,

we would like to add a new pv $presentity (or better name) to be set on presence handle_subscribe.

the reason for this is that we need the presentity of the subscription to carry on further tasks in the script and the To header not always carries the right information on re-subscriptions.

handle_subscribe will take the presentity from Request-URI if no to-tag is sent or it will take it from hash/db if to-tag is present.

is that ok to proceed with implementation ?

Best




_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev at lists.sip-router.org<mailto:sr-dev at lists.sip-router.org>
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev



--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
Kamailio World Conference, May 27-29, 2015
Berlin, Germany - http://www.kamailioworld.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-dev/attachments/20150323/c595e75f/attachment-0001.html>