On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 12:25 -0400, Damian Krzeminski wrote: > Andrei Cristian Niculae wrote: > > [...] > > Andrei - I read your responses and they all make sense. It's not like I > have a problem with the concept of 'site/location' but I do have a > difference of opinion on how to get there. > > I am always in favor of implementing the smallest possible set of features > that make something usable. It's never ideal on the first iteration, but if > we get something wrong we can quickly change it and get it right the next > time. > > That's why my first reaction is: let's defer the general site location > concept, implement what's needed now independently for each location > specific feature, do not add any special/centralized location UI and see > where it leads us. We will alway be able to add a dedicated page for site > location later.
I concur... one additional point that I think argues for this approach: At present, there is a well-defined (if perhaps now well-known) rule for the precedence between settings in different groups (the order on the groups pages). If we create an alternative "view" of the same underlying mechanism (that is, implement location internally as a group but don't show it on the groups pages), then there is no obvious way to control its precedence relative to the general purpose groups. _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
