Douglas Garstang wrote:
What exactly do you mean by 'documented not to be implemented'? If you are referring to the fact it isn't implemented, yes I realise that. That's why I'm trying to get an idea for when these features will be. This isn't whining.
You did not ask when they would be implemented, you said that it not being implemented was 'a major limitation'. That is not asking a question, nor is it in any way constructive.
If you are however, stating they are designed this way and there's no plan to implement them, I'm wondering why there's such resistance to putting redundant features into Asterisk?
You are very good at putting words into others' mouths, apparently... Since nobody has said anything of the kind, making a statement like this is purely inflammatory. Where is this resistance that you speak of? Do you have any evidence that someone provided a functional implementation of this feature and it was rejected? Do you have any evidence that someone provided even a functional design for others to implement and it was rejected? If not, saying there is 'resistance' is purely argumentative and only annoys everyone else.
Asterisk has the features it has because people with the skills to implement them did so; features that are not present are not that way because someone decided they would not ever be there (except in very rare circumstances), they are that way because nobody has provided an implementation that was merged into the source tree. Reading anything more into the lack of a feature is wasting our time and yours :-)
_______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- Asterisk-Users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
