On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Joshua Colp <[email protected]> wrote: > Matthew Jordan wrote: > > <snip> > > >>> My problem is when I get arguments like "it's there in PJIP so we >>> have to use it" or "we can't do anything because of PJSIP". >> >> >> That's not my argument at all. >> >> My argument is thus: >> >> * PJSIP provides DNS resolution that far exceeds what is capable in >> Asterisk today and does so in an obtrusive fashion. It has no >> negative side effects to the rest of Asterisk. It's three lines of >> code to enable it. I want to turn it on. * If Asterisk's core DNS >> catches up - and hopefully surpasses PJSIP - then by all means, let >> us as a project submit a patch to PJSIP that makes their DNS >> resolution pluggable. That would allow us to modify the res_pjsip >> stack to use Asterisk's DNS support. > > > Inobtrusive, not obtrusive. Two different words. >
I should stick to smaller words. -- Matthew Jordan Digium, Inc. | Engineering Manager 445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA Check us out at: http://digium.com & http://asterisk.org -- _____________________________________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-dev mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
