You are right that conventional tools for http don't make sense in telephony. My thoughts were more along the lines of not wanting to recreate a robust production worthy input/output stream handler that has been done a million times.
Currently, I am writing a "Connector" for Tomcat that will handle the "AGI" protocol. If the AGI protocol had been written to just follow standard http I would not have to write the Connector. An option instead of the connector is to just proxy the AGI request wrapping it with http. Really, I could probably just get by with Prepending a "GET /<somepath>" Ultimately, I am just trying to pull it into a java servlet environment that I am comfortable with. On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:07:57 -0500, Steven Critchfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 16:42 -0400, Chris Stratton wrote: > > > > I have been working with FastAGI. I really like it and the idea. But I > > was curious why the decision was made to not follow a standard http > > protocol approach? If it had been http, I could then use all the > > conventional tools that already exist to maintain state, grab name > > value pairs or any number of things. > > Probably because the conventional tools for http don't make sense in > telephony? I do not see why I would care about sessioning on a phone > call. Sessioning is to take care of lack of state, but we have state. > > BTW, be more patient next time before reposting your message. Not all of > the people here who could give you a definitive answer live on their > computers. > -- > Steven Critchfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
