On 06/24/08 14:33, Dan Pascu wrote: > On Tuesday 24 June 2008, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote: > >> On 06/24/08 13:10, Dan Pascu wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday 24 June 2008, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote: >>> >>>>> What exactly is broken? If I run openser with my 1.3 script will it >>>>> work exactly the same or not? >>>>> >>>> Could you please review the messages in the beginning of this email >>>> thread? I listed couple of them there, giving examples and details. >>>> >>> I've reviewed it and I've seen nothing broken if local_route is not >>> used at all, >>> >> Then I believe that not running openser will solve all bugs, nothing >> will go wrong. This discussion goes aside the topic. If you consider >> that doing operations to a message and affecting a completely different >> message is not broken and critical because one has the choice not to >> use those functions, then I cannot comment more on this. Either you don't understand what I am saying with above and below phrases, or I don't understand what you are still asking.
As said, let's move on and chose a direction. If for you solves the accounting of self generated messages, for me breaks the pseudo-variable engine, accounting, logging and routing. But we are not alone here. I am going to fix what is broken in my side of code in any of the variants. Daniel >> Let me know >> how I can avoid printing in accounting or xlog the wrong branch set or >> branch flags inside local_route. >> > > Those issues were already addressed by Bogdan and they can be easily fixed > by a save/restore or a copy/update approach depending on the situation. > > >> Let's go on and decide what to do, as I mentioned in another thread. >> Either disable local_route or let developers choice to fix their code >> that was not designed for the nested contexts architecture. >> > > Again, please provide an example of something that is breaking the > architecture, something that cannot be easily fixed and I'm all with you > to include this in ifdefs and disable it by default. But please provide > some concrete example, otherwise all this will remain at buzzword level > and we'll get nowhere trying to solve it. I'm not absurd and I won't > advocate to push something harmfull into 1.4, but so far I've not seen > anything that would suggest that things are as bad as you suggest. I've > only seen about 2 bugs that are easy to fix, stuff that is ignored in > local_route because it makes no sense there (much like other stuff that > is ignored or gives errors in reply or error routes when used) and the > fact that the functionality is incomplete and can be extended in the > future. But none of these serve as an argument against it IMO. > > >> I am fine >> with both, but I guess half of the functionalities of openser will not >> be available in local_route if we go for the second choice. I prefer to >> focus on fixing the other issues rather thinking of workarounds for >> local_route, so I will disable it in my code, at root level, I won't go >> through entire source code, meaning that functionalities that can be >> potentially right won't be available. >> > > -- http://www.asipto.com _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.openser.org http://lists.openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
