Lubomir Christov wrote:
BUT I have the say that I have the same opinion as martin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): "Although personally I would prefer oh323 for its very well described config file for now winner is chan_h323"
Again, what is not clear about h323.conf? It follows the other Asterisk channel driver config methods.
I am looking for specifics here, not just generalizations.
When we checked the source of chan_h323 (there was some problems few days ago with g729 support - I know it's fixed yet) I had the feeling that the channel was written in a hurry and there are too many things not finished yet - just a example - there are some functions that aren't doing nothing, just return ...
What functions are you talking about? You do realize some functions are called "getter" functions, all they do is return information to the calling function.
And no chan_h323 was absolutely NOT written in a hurry. I spent the better part of a month in primary development of chan_h323.
I'm sure that if Jeremy McNamara and Michael Manousos start working together on the H323 support in asterisk - then the things will be MUCH BETTER. And only then * will have a REALLY GOOD H323 support.
As history shows I was totally blown off by Michael when I offered to help better his driver. Then I was even told that I couldn't create anything better...hence the birth of chan_h323 and this whole mess.
Jeremy McNamara
_______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
