Joshua, thank you for an insightful and helpful comment. My situation is
not limited to MixMonitor issue, but it is a major obstacle, so the code
you provided could prove to be very useful. One can - probably - keep
proper call state by using shared variable space, but just as you said,
it's kludgy and unreadable. If you feel compelled to write more comments
than code, something is wrong.
21. 07. 2020. u 18:04, Joshua Elson je napisao/la:
In a general sense, this kind of functionality would indeed be
helpful. We've run into a number of circumstances where stuff as
simple as setting a channel variable on a known channel (particularly
when you're directly operating on Local/ abstractions) would be
helpful. I've seen far too many people using SHELL with AMI calls in
these out of band scripts that are quite risky to do this. Using
SHARED + MASTER_CHANNEL can - sometimes - get you where you need to
go, but it's particularly kludgy, doesn't work in all circumstances,
and doesn't make for very readable code.
I've run into the exact issue - needing to do stuff with MixMonitor on
other channels - quite a few times. Never got around to cleaning this
up to submit, but attached patch adds a MuteMixMonitor application
that takes as its first argument a Channel ID. Nikša - if your
situation is limited to just the MixMonitor issue, you could pretty
easily modify existing start/stop apps or add a new one to do what you
need.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 3:31 AM Nikša Baldun <i...@voxdiversa.hr
<mailto:i...@voxdiversa.hr>> wrote:
I suspected there might be a catch. So far, our dabbling in
Asterisk code consists of some patches, mostly for our internal
use, and a small Asterisk module. It didn't take us long to figure
out how to make a module, even with limited documentation, but
this looks an order of magnitude more difficult.
On 21. 07. 2020. 10:58, Joshua C. Colp wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 3:52 AM Nikša Baldun <i...@voxdiversa.hr
<mailto:i...@voxdiversa.hr>> wrote:
Thanks for the reply, Joshua. It would definitely be useful.
I took a look at FreePBX code to see how they handle call
recordings in my example scenario, and apparently they call a
PHP script from dialplan, which then controls recording via
AMI connection. An awful lot of effort, not to mention a
performance hit. I am guessing they wouldn't do it if there
was any other way.
I am not surprised that this functionality does not exist, I
know that Asterisk development is difficult, but I am
surprised there was no talk about it. I might take a crack at
this myself if my schedule clears up. I am thinking,
pre-bridge handlers already exist, and methodology for
pushing handlers onto a channel already exists. So one could
figure it out with some effort. Or am I being naive?
Each provider of such functionality does its own parsing,
handling of any other channel, but does call a common function.
The pushing of handlers isn't generic or anything, so it would
have to be copied.
--
Joshua C. Colp
Asterisk Technical Lead
Sangoma Technologies
Check us out at www.sangoma.com <http://www.sangoma.com> and
www.asterisk.org <http://www.asterisk.org>
--
_____________________________________________________________________
-- 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
