[Users] Serial forking
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
bogdan at voice-system.ro
Thu Dec 1 12:39:55 CET 2005
Hi Matteo,
unfortunately I do not have since I'm not using LCR module. Maybe others
on the list may provide you with a sample.
regards,
bogdan
Matteo Piazza wrote:
> Hi,
> yuo can me send an example of a LCR DAtabase compiled
> Thank's
>
> | prefix | from_uri | grp_id | pryority |
> -----------------------------------------
> | ? | ? | ? | ? |
> | ? | ? | ? | ? |
>
>
>
> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
>
>> Hi Tim,
>>
>>
>> Tim Klein wrote:
>>
>>> Bogdan said:
>>>
>>>> I just committed serial proper forking support into core - it was
>>>> migrated from LCR module. I mean proper, since it has q value
>>>> support and it can be used by any module without any inter-module
>>>> dependencies.
>>>>
>>>> The idea behind was to allow to all module that performs parallel
>>>> forking to do also serial forking - exec, enum, registrar, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That's good news! Thank you!
>>>
>>> But I have some questions to help me understand the new functions.
>>> Please see below...
>>>
>>>> There are two new script functions :
>>>> *serialize_branches(n)* : it inherits the functionality of
>>>> load_contacts() from LCR; gets all parallel branches and convert
>>>> them into AVPs for serial forking; numerical parameter 'n' says if
>>>> any previous AVP should be removed (if non-0) or not (if 0).
>>>> Returns true is no error (even if no serialization happened).
>>>> *next_branches()* : it inherits the functionality of
>>>> next_contacts() from LCR; get (based on q value) the next
>>>> contact(s) to be used in sequential forking. Returns true only if
>>>> a new contact was got to be used.
>>>>
>>>> The AVP containing the branches is accessible only via alias - its
>>>> ID is not configurable or visible; the alias (automatically
>>>> exported by core) is "serial_branch" - it is visible from any
>>>> module that uses the avp core aliasing system.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My questions:
>>>
>>> Let's say there are 4 contacts registered. Two of the contacts ("A"
>>> and "B") have q value of 1.0. The other two contacts ("C" and "D")
>>> have q value of 0.5.
>>>
>>> Using the following routing script, which contacts will be tried in
>>> the main route block, and which will be tried in the failure_route
>>> block?
>>>
>> according to RFC and Q interpretation, you will get in request route
>> the C and D contacts (as they have the lower q (higher priority) and
>> their q is equal. In failure route you get A and B (as they have the
>> same q).
>>
>> regards,
>> bogdan
>>
>>> modparam("registrar", "append_branches", 1)
>>> .....
>>> {
>>> .....
>>> lookup("location");
>>> serialize_branches(1);
>>> t_on_failure("1");
>>> t_relay();
>>> }
>>>
>>> failure_route[1] {
>>> if (next_branches()) {
>>> t_relay();
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Users mailing list
>> Users at openser.org
>> http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
>
>
More information about the sr-users
mailing list