Re: [Sems] Transferring a session

[Raphael Coeffic]

 On 05.10.10 16:02, Антон Загорский wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: Raphael Coeffic [mailto:r...@iptel.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 5:26 PM
To: Антон Загорский
Cc: 'Juha Heinanen'; 'sems mailing list'
Subject: Re: [Sems] Transferring a session

   On 05.10.10 14:34,   wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Raphael Coeffic [mailto:r...@iptel.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 3:46 PM
To: Juha Heinanen
Cc:  ; 'sems mailing list'
Subject: Re: [Sems] Transferring a session

    Hi Juha,

What you are doing right now is some sort of serial forking.
But how can this work? connectCallee first terminate other leg which
isn't 'None' after previous call connectCalee.

That's why I call it serial forking: it tries the next one after
killing
the previous one.

In fact it isn't serial forking!

Right, YOUR scenario is not about serial forking (as far as I 
understood), but Juha's ;-)

AmB2ABCallerSession::connectCallee() doesn't terminate (current callee) session 
immediately.

Then it's a bug ;-)

AmB2BCallerSession::connectCallee() and 
AmB2ABCallerSession::connectCallee() have both following code at the 
beginning:

  if(callee_status != None)
    terminateOtherLeg();

and at the end:

 callee_status = NoReply;


This means that the code should void the second call at very moment you 
call connectCallee the second time. If this does not work correctly, 
please file a bug report with a much details as possible.


But could we please try to reformulate your scenario so that I can 
understand what you are trying to reach?

Is that something like:
 - A calls.
 - B & C (etc...) are called.
 - the first to answer gets connected to A.

Or is that more something like:
 - A calls.
 - B & C (etc...) are called.
 - they all answer.
 - through some application logic, it is determined that for example C 
should be connected to A.
 - A gets connected to C.

Cheers
Raphael.

Having
class c1: public AmB2ABSessionCaller
{
[..skipped..]
        void onSessionStart(const AmSipRequest&  req)
        {
                connectCallee(UAC2);
                connectCallee(UAC3);
        };
[..skipped..]
}

I'm getting both ringing UAC2 and UAC3. In fact, UAC3 ringing early.


If I have understood your scenario correctly (merging two calls), then
you should stick to my first explainations.

Cheers
Raphael.

_______________________________________________
Sems mailing list
Sems@lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/sems