Hi Juha,
the MI stuff does not affect at all the syntax of TM functions
t_write_unix() and t_write_req(). These are inside2outside functions
used for pushing data from openser to an external application (via
unixsock or fifo).
MI in only for outside2inside functions - internal functions triggered
by external applications. MI is an internal interface in order to have
only on internal implementation of the functions, totally independent of
the transport mechanism (fifo, unixsocks, etc).
So, for SEMS point of view, the affected ones will be the internal
functions exported by TM:
t_uac_dlg
t_uac_cancel
t_hash
t_reply
I guess all are used by SEMS excepting t_hash function.
So, to answer to your question, yes, in the MI implementation (via fifo
and XMLRPC and future unixsock - still in progress) the syntax was
changed a bit (for consistency and clarity reasons) for both t_uac_dlg
and t_reply.
the changes are here:
Syntax of "t_uac_dlg" (as lines):
(old version) (new version)
method method
RURI RURI
NEXT_HOP?|socket? NEXT_HOP?
new_headers* socket?
\n new_headers?
Body* [Body]
.
Syntax of "t_reply" :
(old version) (new version)
code code
reason reason
trans_id trans_id
to_tag to_tag
new headers* new_headers?
\n [Body]
Body*
.
Legend:
* can be multiple lines
? if empty value, the line contains only the '.' char
[] can completely miss
in new version, for multiple lines values (like new_headers and body) a
quoted string can be used (inline '"' must be escaped)
I will try to upload all this on a wiki, or better to doc the MI
functions in the module's readme
regards,
bogdan
Juha Heinanen wrote:
bogdan,
perhaps i have misunderstood migration to mi and i does not effect at
all the syntax of request generated by t_write_unix script function and
the associated replies? if it only affects t_uac_dlg command and its
reply syntax, then nothing needs to be done for sems compatibility.
-- juha
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
