I'm just throwing this out there, but what if the pattern (we'll use that
name for now, although I'm not sure I like it as the final name) could
itself define new types. Then, if you provided a standard config (i.e.,
the sample config) which defined some set of standard types (phone,
itsp/trunk, whatever) you could have configurations with semantics similar
to what Josh originally proposed. It also means a user of Asterisk can
look at the config for the pattern and both see what it's doing under the
hood (vs. being in the code somewhere) and also modify it for their own
needs if they'd like to.
Anyway, just a thought.
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 8:13 PM, George Joseph george.jos...@fairview5.com
wrote:
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Joshua Colp jc...@digium.com wrote:
George Joseph wrote:
snip
How about we use the pattern approach but compile in patterns for trunk
and user. There are lots of minor differences between ITSPs and phones
and I just worry that in the quest to create something for everyone we
create something that's useful to no one.
If it does not impact any of the existing code and is easy for a user,
then sure. That being said... get feedback any way you can before doing
anything. This is a complicated area.
Unfortunately, it looks like everyone took Saturday off. What gives?
:)
--
_
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
asterisk-dev mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
--
_
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
asterisk-dev mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
