Raphael Coeffic wrote:
On 23.04.10 15:42, Stefan Sayer wrote:
Hi,
[email protected] wrote:
Author: rco
Date: 2010-04-09 14:19:28 +0200 (Fri, 09 Apr 2010)
New Revision: 1778
Modified:
trunk/core/AmB2BSession.cpp
trunk/core/AmSipDialog.cpp
trunk/core/AmSipDialog.h
trunk/core/AmSipMsg.cpp
trunk/core/AmSipMsg.h
trunk/core/SipCtrlInterface.cpp
trunk/core/SipCtrlInterface.h
trunk/core/sip/sip_ua.h
trunk/core/sip/trans_layer.cpp
trunk/core/sip/trans_layer.h
Log:
the old serKey has been replaced by a proper transaction ticket
specific to the internal SIP stack.
to me it looks like the transaction ticket in AmSipDialog layer is
only used for cancel()-ing a request, is that correct?
No, it is used for replies as well, embedded in AmSipRequest. However,
this might become a separate parameter.
I am wondering whether this makes sense, then. the tt (which contains
pointers into the transaction structures in sip stack) is saved and
copied everywhere in e.g. uas_trans, where it is not used at all. It
would be different if AmSipDialog::reply() would take the
AmSipTransaction, not the AmSipRequest it replies to.
which contains the ticket as well. I did not want to use a fake request
for the purpose of canceling, as the SIP stack only needs the
transaction ticket to properly cancel a request. I am currently
considering basing everything on the transaction ticket, instead of
using the request (which is saved in the transaction layer as well).
this is what I would also like to see (transaction ticket as parameter
to AmSipDialog::reply()). But shouldn't we take the transaction ticket
out of uas_trans and all the other places where it is not used?
Stefan
Cheers
Raphael.
Stefan
--
Stefan Sayer
VoIP Services Consulting and Development
Warschauer Str. 24
10243 Berlin
tel:+491621366449
sip:[email protected]
email/xmpp:[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Semsdev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/semsdev
