On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 16:27 +0000, Lawrence, Scott (BL60:9D30) wrote: > On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 11:12 -0500, Worley, Dale (BL60:9D30) wrote: > > The problems with this unit test reveal a deeper problem: The > > SipUserAgent, at startup time, is unable to open the prescribed UDP > > port, but the application thinks the constructor was successful. Later, > > the application attempts to send a message via UDP. Down in the bowels > > of SipUdpServer, it's discovered that the "UDP server" doesn't actually > > have a UDP listening port open. > > > > This problem should be reported much, much earlier in processing. (1) > > If the UDP port can't be acquired, there is no point in constructing a > > SipUdpServer, as it won't be listening. (2) If the SipUserAgent > > constructor requests a UDP port, the failure to open it should be > > reported very strongly. > > why is this on the internal list?
Because that's where the discussion started, when it was about a troublesome unit test. But I've now moved the discussion to sipX-dev. Dale _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
