Tim wrote: > Wouldn't it be better to split the file up into smaller files each of > which can be up/down loaded > with the existing mechanism ? All Pari then needs to do is to have a > extensions.conf that 'includes' all the little files? >
What we have now is working fine, except there are few times where we are forced to read an entire file on the client side - even if we are looking for just one context in it. So i requested having an option that can be used to retrieve just the particular context from a config file. The question that was raised is - can we keep adding manager actions like these to the web server, because the objective was to have a really thin webserver that does not steal any significant cpu cycles and to leave all the file parsing to the clients. -pari ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Panton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Asterisk Developers Mailing List" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 3:25:51 AM (GMT-0600) America/Chicago Subject: Re: [asterisk-dev] Feature Request - new manager commands - 'getcontexts' and 'getcontext' On 9 Jun 2007, at 23:59, Caio Begotti wrote: > On 09/06/2007, at 16:57, Tilghman Lesher wrote: >> Wouldn't adding these commands defeat the intent of the http >> server in >> Asterisk? The intent, as I understand it, is to be lightweight, >> to shift all >> of the complexity of the configuration into the browser, so the >> Asterisk >> process isn't spending time doing string processing for the >> manager interface >> (and thus properly spends its time on call processing). > > I understand that adding new manager commands with *almost* the > same behavior is not good at all, but considering that web > applications are not that smart and fast when doing big parsings > maybe it would help Pari in his task. > > I compare that with a very huge file and a magic "sed" command that > does the trick but is awful and slow. However, it still seems to be > a design issue: adding new manager events once in a week seems to > be wrong, I agree. > > If the problem is performance here, as Pari seems to state so, then > perhaps it's really necessary to put it inside the manager code to > make it fast and specialized instead asking Asterisk for the whole > extensions.conf with hundreads of contexts and big contents (yeah, > ok) then parsing it all. Anyway, as you said, it isn't necessarly > that intensive for a C app :-) Wouldn't it be better to split the file up into smaller files each of which can be up/down loaded with the existing mechanism ? All Pari then needs to do is to have a extensions.conf that 'includes' all the little files? Tim. _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-dev mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-dev mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
