Hi Tomasz, On 01/25/2011 03:43 PM, Tomasz Gregorek wrote: > Hi Denis > > 2011/1/25 Denis Kenzior <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > Hi Tomasz, > > > Shouldn’t ReleaseAndAnswere() release the active call and bring > back the > > held one in such situation? > > > > You shouldn't be using ReleaseAndAnswer in this case, instead you should > use SwapCalls. SwapCalls has the added benefit of allowing swapping of > held and active calls even if there is a call waiting (if your modem > hardware supports this.) > > > SwapCalls wont release active call. This would be a case when we finished > active call and we want to disconnect and get back to the held one. > Though this can also be done with Release on active call followed > by SwapCalls. >
Yep, Hangup or HangupMultiparty then SwapCalls. If you feel that a single operation to accomplish hangup + swap is required we can certainly consider it. For now it didn't pass our API is Minimal + Complete test. Perhaps ReleaseAndSwap()...? > > > > There also could be a little more description of behavior for a case > > when we have held and waiting calls saying that the waiting call > will be answered and > > that held won’t be released. > > > > The documentation says: "Releases currently active call and answers the > currently waiting call". > > Is this not enough? Can you suggest better wording? > > > If we are not touching held calls with this function than it is enough. > I would only add "if any exist" as this function works when there are held > and waiting calls. > > "Releases currently active call if any exists, and answers the > currently waiting call." > Fair enough, fixed with commit b937d99791abc8c33ef968be40f193f3985bca8d. Regards, -Denis _______________________________________________ ofono mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ofono.org/listinfo/ofono
