The process names defined in the process definition files are
"well-known" and sacrosanct. Changing them will cause upgrade issues.
Unless the service in question is new in 4.0, its alias should not be
changed.
sipxproc is a designer debug tool, and we have to live with the naming
decisions we made eons ago.
Carolyn
________________________________
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Yang, Huijun
(CAR:9D30)
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 12:55 PM
To: sipx dev
Subject: Re: [sipX-dev] PresenceServer Name confusion XCF-3268
If I don't hear any objection, I am assuming everyone is ok that
I will proceed to change process name of sipxPresenceService to
"ACDPresenceServer".
cheers
Huijun
________________________________
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Yang, Huijun
(CAR:9D30)
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 10:46 AM
To: sipx dev
Subject: [sipX-dev] PresenceServer Name confusion XCF-3268
Hello,
http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XCF-3268
<http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XCF-3268>
"From System > Servers > Services the Presence Server is shown
as 'Running'
>From a putty session command sipxproc -l is run and the
PrescenceServer is shown as 'disabled' "
It was found out that the status of the relevant services is
correct in fact. The problem lies in the name mismatch.
On Server --> Services screen,
The underneath mapping is as following:
"Presence" ---> sipxRlsService
"ACD Agent Status" ---> sipxPresenceService (acd presence)
While the mapping for internal process name from sipxproc is:
"PresenceServer" ---> sipxPresenceService (acd presence)
"ResourceListServer" ---> sipxRlsService
Now you can easily tell where the problem is, "PresenceServer"
means different thing in different context.
I know we had a discussion on the name of services before.
(http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.voip.sipx.devel/14261/focus=14314
<http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.voip.sipx.devel/14261/focus=14314> )
Since the names of the services shown on Server --> Services
screen had been compiled in the dev list, I am not propose the services
name changes, but I think
we should rename the internal processname of "PresenceServer" to
"ACDPresenceServer" to be consistent and avoid confusion.
Objections?
Thanks,
Huijun
_______________________________________________
sipx-dev mailing list
[email protected]
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev
Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev
