Putting classic for a later date would actually be a good idea. As that way we can have a stable core against which the classic plugin can be tested more thoroughly. Also this would ensure that those working on other drivers can have a stable core to build on.
Ambar > Basically, Bayonne 2 will have sip, h323, and Voicetronix in > the primary > distro. The external nonfree driver package can also be > adapted to work > with it as well as with head later, so those drivers do not > need to be > complete for 1.0 core package to be. It would have a subset of the > current ivrscript binding, mostly related to the truelly > stable parts. > You would be able to generate outgoing calls through the fifo. > > I do believe it is possible to come up with a binding plugin, perhaps > called "classic", which could do most of the original Bayonne > "1" 1.2.x > script syntax, now that ivrscript is itself a plugin. Would this be > worth doing? Should it be done for a 1.0 release? > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Thumbs up from my end. BTW.. How the bayonne 2 1.0 compare > to current > > bayonne 1.2.x series? Also what about issues relating to > migration of > > existing scripts that work under bayonne 1.2.x? _______________________________________________ Bayonne-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bayonne-devel
