I'm just throwing this out there, but what if the "pattern" (we'll use that name for now, although I'm not sure I like it as the final name) could itself define new types. Then, if you provided a standard config (i.e., the sample config) which defined some set of standard types (phone, itsp/trunk, whatever) you could have configurations with semantics similar to what Josh originally proposed. It also means a user of Asterisk can look at the config for the pattern and both see what it's doing under the hood (vs. being in the code somewhere) and also modify it for their own needs if they'd like to.
Anyway, just a thought. On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 8:13 PM, George Joseph <george.jos...@fairview5.com> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Joshua Colp <jc...@digium.com> wrote: > >> George Joseph wrote: >> >> <snip> >> > > >> How about we use the pattern approach but compile in patterns for trunk >>> and user. There are lots of minor differences between ITSPs and phones >>> and I just worry that in the quest to create something for everyone we >>> create something that's useful to no one. >>> >> >> If it does not impact any of the existing code and is easy for a user, >> then sure. That being said... get feedback any way you can before doing >> anything. This is a complicated area. >> >>> >>> Unfortunately, it looks like everyone took Saturday off. What gives? > :) > > > -- > _____________________________________________________________________ > -- 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 >
-- _____________________________________________________________________ -- 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
