[SR-Users] [sr-dev] RFC: Renaming dialog_ng to ims_dialog
jason.penton at gmail.com
Wed Dec 16 09:42:25 CET 2015
On 16 Dec 2015 10:36 AM, "Carsten Bock" <carsten at ng-voice.com> wrote:
> I agree, if the dialog_ng module is only used with IMS deployments, it
> may be confusing that it's called dialog_ng (despite the original
> ideas/thoughts, Richard mentioned).
> I have no objections renaming it to ims_dialog; if we manage to merge
> it at some point with the existing dialog-module and make the
> functionality more generic, we can rename it back to dialog_ng or
> similar later.
> 2015-12-15 20:50 GMT+01:00 Richard Good <richard.good at smilecoms.com>:
> > Hi Daniel
> > As you mentioned the original reason for this module was not IMS but
> > to support some new features, in particular forking. It is not
> > particularly specific to IMS.
> > Unfortunately we have not managed to merge with the normal dialog module
> > we had originally intended.
> > I do hope at some point we manage to merge the two modules so each can
> > benefit for the others fixes but think it will be quite an endeavour.
> > Having said this I have no issue with renaming the module or explicitly
> > explaining in the documentation if it is causing any confusion.
> > Let's see if the other IMS devs agree.
> > Regards
> > Richard.
> > On 15 Dec 2015 2:52 PM, "Daniel-Constantin Mierla" <miconda at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >> I am under the impression that the name dialog_ng creates confusion out
> >> there and some people are using it instead of the classic dialog module.
> >> Although it was started with goals of reworking dialog module with a
> >> different concept (which was discussed mainly by some guys that
> >> afterwards changed their job to non-voip area), dialog_ng ended up to be
> >> tailored for IMS needs.
> >> Probably we should do that refactoring of the dialog module, but
> >> meanwhile dialog_ng doesn't refect that and some people are confused by
> >> the current naming of the two modules.
> >> Practically is more about convenience at this moment and if IMS
> >> developers and users think it is not going to be a big overhead for
> >> their deployments to be upgraded, I can take care to rename it. So,
> >> while general opinion matters, I think we should see first what IMS devs
> >> prefer.
> >> I am personally not affected that much, so I am fine to keep it like it
> >> is now -- in that case, proper notes should be added to documentation,
> >> stating that dialog_ng must be used only for IMS (or when the config
> >> writer knows very well what she/he is doing).
> >> Cheers,
> >> Daniel
> >> --
> >> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
> >> http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
> >> Book: SIP Routing With Kamailio - http://www.asipto.com
> >> http://miconda.eu
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> sr-dev mailing list
> >> sr-dev at lists.sip-router.org
> >> http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
> > This email is subject to the disclaimer of Smile Communications at
> > http://www.smilecoms.com/home/email-disclaimer/
> > _______________________________________________
> > sr-dev mailing list
> > sr-dev at lists.sip-router.org
> > http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
> Carsten Bock
> CEO (Geschäftsführer)
> ng-voice GmbH
> Schomburgstr. 80
> D-22767 Hamburg / Germany
> mailto:carsten at ng-voice.com
> Office +49 40 5247593-0
> Fax +49 40 5247593-99
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Hamburg, HRB 120189
> Geschäftsführer: Carsten Bock
> Ust-ID: DE279344284
> Hier finden Sie unsere handelsrechtlichen Pflichtangaben:
> sr-dev mailing list
> sr-dev at lists.sip-router.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the sr-users