Regarding Stasis origination: like AMI/CLI/Dialplan origination, Stasis origination comes in two flavors.

1) Originate to an application. Unlike with AMI/CLI/Dialplan origination to an application, this will always originate to a Stasis application. So in a way, this flavor of origination does what Nir expects.

2) Originate to a dialplan location. This functions pretty much exactly like AMI/CLI/Dialplan origination to an extension/context/priority. The difference here is that your Stasis application gains a subscription to the channel that is created, so you have the ability to be notified of activities that this channel performs. My guess is that this is intended more for deployments that have upgraded Asterisk to use ARI for specific applications, but that already have some semblance of dialplan/AGI that they want to incorporate. In general, I would expect that someone implementing an ARI application from scratch would never use this flavor of origination.

Now on to Nir's suggestion regarding bridge lifetimes:

I'm not a fan of adding this to ARI. To me ARI should expose primitive operations only, and it's up to library/framework/application writers to build it into something more. For instance, you'll notice that we have no DTMF-triggered features available in ARI bridges. This is because we expose the ability for ARI applications to capture DTMF themselves and translate that into their own feature instead. Similarly, with regards to bridge lifetimes, any programming language you could ever use to write an ARI application will have timing libraries available for you to manage the lifetime of a bridge.

The thing that's neat with a REST interface that exposes primitives is that it promotes an ecosystem where people can write libraries on top of ARI that perform more complex operations. For instance, it would be totally possible for someone to write a bridge management library that exposed a more complex API where bridges could have a lifetime, could play media to participants at given intervals, could have the lifetime changed (and play media to the participants letting them know that the lifetime changed), and could maybe even allow the bridge to be re-created after expiration if a participant takes a certain action (like providing more money to a service). Someone else could fork that bridge management library and add their own features on top of it.

Instead of having ARI expose the "one true way" to manage the lifetime of bridges, people have a choice between different implementations written by others or they can write their own (either from scratch or by forking someone else's library) to fit their needs.

On 12/17/2014 03:16 PM, Phil Mickelson wrote:
Nir, I agree with you about wondering why does the call go through the dialplan. Perhaps someone could answer that? Or, perhaps give us some idea if this will change?

In my case, the connection to the dialplan is literally three lines. The minimum required. I never return.

Phil M


On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Nir Simionovich <nir.simionov...@gmail.com <mailto:nir.simionov...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    Ok, I'll start with this - I agree with the both of you, ARI is
    the right way to go.

    However, when I look at ARI, I see somewhat of a Hybrid. When I
    say hybrid I mean, a tool that enables me to do stuff,
    both inside and outside of the Stasis construct. Example, ARI
    provides a channels API, enabling you to originate a call.
    If ARI was only about stasis, why did we enable the classic
    application/extension, we could have easily just said: "oh,
    originate the call and dump it into a Stasis app" - but that
    didn't happen. Instead, you put the call into a dialplan or an
    application,
    which in turn, will call the Stasis app (if truly required).

    My point is this, if the ability exists and can be added, why not?
    It doesn't break anything that's already in there, it adds much
    needed functionality and it makes ARI richer in comparison to its
    predecessor AMI, which people still have a hard time figuring
    out why they should move to ARI.

    This kind of feature can be a tipping point.

    My 2c on the matter.



    On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:04 PM, Phil Mickelson
    <p...@cbasoftware.com <mailto:p...@cbasoftware.com>> wrote:

        I agree with Paul 100%.  Given my experience with ARI over the
        last year and how easy it is to create these apps I would
        think you could avoid the dialplan completely and easily
        create a routine to do exactly what you want.

        1.  You would know when the call started and was connected.
        2.  You can easily play a sound, any sound, to either end of
        the connection or to both.
        3.  You can disconnect the call when you want.
        4.  I'm not sure given your requirements but you could even
        allow the caller (or callee) to put funds in their account to
        allow for more time.

        ARI is the way to go!  IMHO.

        Phil M


        On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Paul Belanger
        <paul.belan...@polybeacon.com
        <mailto:paul.belan...@polybeacon.com>> wrote:

            On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Nir Simionovich
            <nir.simionov...@gmail.com
            <mailto:nir.simionov...@gmail.com>> wrote:
            > Well,
            >
            >   In simple words yes. To be more specific, I'd like to
            do something like
            > this:
            >
            > 1. Have a simple dialplan that will dialout using the L
            parameter in Dial
            > application
            > 2. Have ARI bridge list function retrieve not only the
            list of active
            > bridges, but also their allocated duration timers - if
            assigned
            > 3. Provide a means via ARI to manipulate the duration timers
            >
            Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think this will
            work.  Any
            bridge or channel from your dialplan would not be
            controlled by
            stasis.  And since it is not in stasis, ARI cannot modify
            it. I think
            the general idea was to build a new app_dial atop of ARI,
            then your
            application would provide that functionality to control the L
            parameter.

            --
            Paul Belanger | PolyBeacon, Inc.
            Jabber: paul.belan...@polybeacon.com
            <mailto:paul.belan...@polybeacon.com> | IRC: pabelanger
            (Freenode)
            Github: https://github.com/pabelanger | Twitter:
            https://twitter.com/pabelanger

            --
            
_____________________________________________________________________
            -- 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


    --
    _____________________________________________________________________
    -- 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

Reply via email to