> 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.
Can anyone comment whether the name of sipxpresence-process is new in
4.0 or it existed in previous release?
Thanks,
Huijun
________________________________
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
