Agreed. I also much prefer the second proposal as it is more intuitive to how you would expect the configuration to look. Templates ftw.
On 2 October 2014 13:45, Brad Watkins <[email protected]> wrote: > As we talked about in #asterisk-dev, I like the proposal generally and > prefer the second style specifically. Just as a matter of eventual > documentation, it'd be nice to see examples using a hierarchy of templates > that shows how to minimize duplication of configuration. > > - Brad > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 8:54 PM, George Joseph <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> This is a followup to the discussion we had in this thread... >> Opinions Needed: PJSIP Outboud Registration with multiple server_uris >> <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/2014-September/070426.html> >> >> I started with wanting to allow multiple server_uris in a single >> registration object but where we wound up was with the creation of a new >> module that would provide a configuration layer on top of the existing >> pjsip configuration mechanism. The purpose of the layer is to make >> configuration of the most common pjsip scenarios, and the transition from >> chan_sip, easier. As a happy side effect, it also allows easier >> manipulation of pjsip contifuration from scripts and AMI. >> >> Basically, the new module creates a 'wizard' object that lets you >> configure common scenarios like 'phone' and 'trunk' with a single object >> rather than defining a separate endpoint, aor, identify, auth, >> registration, etc. It does NOT replace or alter the existing object >> model. The wizard in fact just creates all the normal objects behind the >> scenes. >> >> Showing examples will be much easier than trying to describe it. >> >> PJSIP Configuration Wizard Proposal 1 >> <https://gist.github.com/gtjoseph/f11e1cdf261d93ef5516#file-pjsip_wizard_1-conf> >> PJSIP Configuration Wizard Proposal 2 >> <https://gist.github.com/gtjoseph/e09978f8085091513115#file-pjsip_wizard_2-conf> >> >> The difference between the 2 proposals is that the first one actually >> defines types called 'trunk', 'phone', and 'phone-static' which are used >> later in the config. After staring at it a while though I thought there's >> really no benefit to the types if you use templates. Hence the second >> proposal which I favor. To see the real benefit of the whole approach, >> look down at sections starting at [myitsp]. >> >> I know there are going to be questions and controversy so fire away! >> >> george >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> _____________________________________________________________________ >> -- 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 > -- Leif Madsen CoreUC Lead Systems Engineer p: +1-613-800-7610
-- _____________________________________________________________________ -- 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
