Closed #1535.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/1535#event-1713947352___
Kamailio (SER) - Development Mailing List
sr-dev@lis
Closing this one -- as discussed during IRC devel meeting, a separate
implementation should be done.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/pull/1535#issuecomment-402146014__
I agree that another header file can be created, either leveraging the existing
one for pkg or completely independent.
I will catch up with you on IRC tomorrow or next week to see how to move
forward.
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email direc
I am not sure yet about how to deal with this one.
I agree that there is space to reuse some code for hash tables in shared
memory, but I feel that we should have dedicated code for it, not to mix it
with the one in pkg memory. It will avoid all these if checks to lock/unlock,
as we use hash ta
hi @henningw, I'm developing a module that requires to have a hash in memory to
keep some user information it retrieves from another system via diameter.
The use case is similar to tsilo or domain modules, the information needs to be
available for all processes and accesible through a key.
Howeve
Thank you for the contribution. Just one question so far - what was your
motivation in adding this functionality, where do you need this?
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/kamailio/kamailio/p