On Saturday 30 September 2006 23:04, Juha Heinanen wrote: > Dan Pascu writes: > > > - in w_is_domain_local, why do you use xl_printf_s to get the > > > domain instead of (i would assume) faster xl_get_spec_value? > > > > Mainly because I didn't know about the latter. > > that is used in other modules that need access to avp value. they use > xl_parse_spec to parse the pseudo variable in fixup and then > xl_get_spec_value when value of pseudo variable is accessed by config > functions.
Well, the code I used as inspiration (the rr module) used xl_printf_s so this is what I ended using. I wasn't aware of the other possibility until you mentioned it. > > > Feel free to replace it as > > long as you think it's better and it doesn't change the behavior. > > i don't know if using xl_parse_spec changes behavior. it accepts any > pseudo variable as parameter. it may not handle string parameter, but > you can always assign a string to an avp. also, i don't know what > would be the use case of asking in config file if a fixed string value > is local domain. The handling of fixed strings was not intended in the first place, it was a side effect of what xl_printf_s accepted, so I thought it's worth mentioning in the docs so that people won't be surprised by differences in behavior compared to documentation. However I agree with you, I do not see a use case of fixed string domain testing either and if it's removed I don't think anyone will ask for it. I also don't see (at least for the moment) a use case for the other ability of xl_printf_s (to combine multiple AVPs and PVs printf like). Taking these 2 out, I guess in the other aspects they must be pretty much the same. -- Dan _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
