>> > Damian, I finally found some time to look up the work you had done. >> > Although I haven't tested the functionality yet, I have a couple of
>> > comments on the GUI itself: >> > >> > 1- Users do not have a 'Location' setting. >> > 2- The choices that appear in the 'Location' pull-down list of >> > gateways are the configured groups, not locations. I >> thought we had >> > agreed that although they are implemented similarly, groups and >> > locations would be distinct concepts at the user level. >> >> That's intentional (I tried to be very explicit about it in >> my commit comments). My goal was to make sure that we get >> fallbackrules generations correct. I kept the issue open though. >> >> We'll might reintroduce the location concept, but for now the >> UI does provide enough for all the user stories, right? > >Probably but some stories lead to confusing configuration. Consider an >Ottawa location where you have a set of designer phones and a set of >guest phones. For such a deployment, one may create two groups: >"designers" and "guests", the first one having many permissions and the >second one have a narrow set of permissions however, the administrator >would like to have phones from either group use the same local gateway. >In order to facilitate such a configuration using the current >"group~=location" paradigm, the admin would have to create a >permission-less group called "Ottawa" as well as the already mentioned >"designers" and "guests" groups. It would have to assign every designer >to groups "Ottawa" and "Designers" in that order and every guest to >groups "Ottawa" and "Guests" in that order. From a management >point-of-view, this is not as straight-forward as it could be and is >error-prone as things will not behave as expected if you put the groups >in the wrong order. > >This configuration is much simplified if groups and users can be >assigned locations. All that would be required here would be to set the >locations of "Designers" and "Guests" groups to "Ottawa". > We will eventually need the concept of a location that is different from groups. The question is how we fit it into the current plan for 4.0. Documenting the routing rules is an increasing challenge as there are many variables (gateway order, location, rules, schedules). Adding sdcenarios for failover further complicates matters. For an admin to find out how a call is really routed under all scenarios, for all users and all times of day is quite a challenge. Current help texts do not explain this sufficiently and we therefore need more documentation about it. In this context I do agree that introducing "virtual locations" called groups makes it more difficult. --martin _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
