Matthew Rubenstein wrote:
The real advantage in choosing an AGI (or CGI or ...) platform/language
is *reusing* the existing code that already runs on that platform, with
Well of course you should pick whatever AGI implementation matches the
rest of your environment best.
minimal porting to the platform in that language. How much does a Java
application, net/bean, or modern (1.4-6.x) class have to be revised to
make it work with asterisk-java as FastAGI instead of, say, AGI, CGI,
commandline, browser JVM, or other execution environment/UI?
I'm not totally sure you're asking the right question here.
Asterisk-java in combination with Asterisk and in my case Lumenvox is
just a user interface for whatever application I am developing. In my
case it's not even the only user interface I've created for my system
(which happens to be in Home Automation which uses CORBA to connect the
pieces together) - I've also got a web interface as well as other
standalone front ends and even the light switches can be considered part
of the UI (and therefore non reusable). Asterisk-java provides you with
an ordinary JRE environment where you might not be in direct control of
main() (though you can be if you really want to), but that's similar to
the other server environments you mentioned (browser JVM is a different
animal).
So the real question isn't so much how a class needs to be revised for
asterisk-java, it is does your back end system provide a robust API such
that you can be dropped naked in the middle of a JRE woods and without
anything more than some additions to the CLASSPATH be able to interact
with your back end system.
Steve
_______________________________________________
--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
