[Users] Persistently storing headers from onreply_route()?
Joachim Fabini
Joachim.Fabini at tuwien.ac.at
Thu Oct 20 10:25:50 CEST 2005
Hi Bogdan,
I tried your patch, works perfectly, absolutely no problem so
far. It's exactly what we needed.
Just one more question (for now ;): Is the same procedure safe
to be used with 0.9.5 and 0.9.0 devel? Obviously the patch
must be applied manually for 0.9.x;
Looking at the sources and comparing the affected 0.9.x and
0.10.x files I am pretty sure that moving the lock in the
0.9.x t_reply.c is supposed to do exactly the same thing like
in 0.10 devel. And, as written above, anything works as
expected - also for 0.9.x.
So, is there something we miss?
Thanks again,
best regards
--Joachim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bogdan-Andrei Iancu [mailto:bogdan at voice-system.ro]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 19. Oktober 2005 17:07
> To: Joachim Fabini
> Cc: users at openser.org; 'Joachim Fabini'
> Subject: Re: [Users] Persistently storing headers from
> onreply_route()?
>
> Hi Joachim,
>
> apply the attached tm.patch - it's trivial change that will
> synchronize
> the execution of on_reply route. And it will be safe to use avpops
> functions in on_reply routes. Note that you have to change the module
> interface of AVPOPS and add the ONREPLY_ROUTE flag.
>
> regards,
> bogdan
>
> PS: if you get a coredump, I'm free of any responsibilities :D
>
> Joachim Fabini wrote:
>
> >Hi Bogdan,
> >
> >
> >
> >>the reason haven't changed: avps doesn't work in on_reply
> route since
> >>the avp belong to a transaction and the on_reply route
> >>execution is not synchronized and may be done in parallel for same
> >>transaction.
> >>
> >>For the moment there is no solution to this - synchronizing
> >>the on_reply routes will be quite ugly :-/
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Do you see another - even proprietary - very-short-term-workaround
> >that can provide this functionality (storing avps within
> onreply_route
> >in the database that can be later on accessed from the route block
> >using avp-ops) without extra module coding?
> >Ugly is not important at all if it works. After all it's just about
> >prototyping, the final code should be clean... ;))
> >
> >
> >
> >>But what will be done (there was a discussion with Juha on
> >>this topic) is to add global avps which not being bound to
> >>a transaction can be used inside on_reply route. I guess this
> >>will solve your problem....
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Definitely. That's also conceptually closer to what Service-Route
> >is supposed to do - it's valid for the lifetime of a registration
> >(although it might be changed by re-registrations) and not just
> >for one transaction. Any estimate when this will be available?
> >
> >Thanks for your help,
> >regards
> >--Joachim
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
More information about the sr-users
mailing list