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:

Reply via email to