On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 12:06 PM, George Joseph <george.jos...@fairview5.com > wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Joshua Colp <jc...@digium.com> wrote: > >> George Joseph wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >> >>> 5. The idea of higher level concept configuration has been thrown >>> around as something to make this easier. I personally think this >>> sort of thing belongs there. A type=trunk, itsp, phone, etc. Lower >>> level blocks remain the same and additional logic on top can be >>> added to handle this sort of thing. >>> >>> Are you thinking like users.conf? I thought you guys wanted that to die >>> a horrible death. :) Seriously though, are you thinking along the >>> lines of a new composite pjsip configuration object that creates the >>> base objects behind the scenes? If so, that'd solve a lot and I could >>> start working on it right now. I just thought you guys were shying away >>> from these types of things. >>> >> >> As base objects it's a bad idea. As a single object to rule them all (a >> user) it's also a complicated/bad idea. As higher level concepts which >> represent things that people are familiar with they're fine. >> >> Since endpoint really contains most of the detailed config parameters, > would you see enhancements to endpoint that allow direct specification of > simple things like username, password, contact, etc. or really a separate > object like trunk, user, etc.? I'm guessing the latter but the former > would be a lot easier to implement. > > Or separate objects from a config file perspective but implemented in pjsip_configuration with endpoint.
-- _____________________________________________________________________ -- 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