[Serusers] t_check_status in failure_route

[Richard Z]

I have some private code to treat 487 as the lowest number. There were some 
discussions about this in ser list before. Since there is no standard, ser 
implementation just picked the the lowest code.

I am not sure which way is better, pick 487 as lowest, or use 
t_check_status. Any suggestion?

If someone wanst, I can provide the patch to the list.

Richard


On 9/9/05, Andreas Granig <andreas.granig at inode.info> wrote:
> 
> Andreas Granig wrote:
> > There was a discussion about introducing a method which checks if the
> > call is cancelled to detect 487 (don't know anymore if on the
> > openser-lists or here), but what about other codes?
> 
> Or to rephrase it: does it really make sense to choose the lowest code
> for serial forking? I understand it does when forking in parallel, and
> that it's the same implementation for both in SER, but wouldn't it make
> live easier when differing between both scenarios and just overwrite the
> last code when doing serial forking?
> 
> Andy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Serusers mailing list
> serusers at lists.iptel.org
> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sip-router.org/pipermail/sr-users/attachments/20050909/bd43f00c/attachment.htm>