> -----Original Message----- > From: Mossman, Paul (CAR:9D30) > Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 9:32 AM > To: Beeton, Carolyn (CAR:9D60); [email protected] > Subject: RE: [sipX-dev] Config for bridged line appearances > (XX-4762/XX-5439) > > Carolyn wrote: > ... > > > As you write there are 2 ways to do it: > > > (1) "shared" is an attribute of the line > > > (2) "shared" is an attribute of the user > > > > > > (1) has the advantage of being able to configure shared and > > non-shared > > > appearance and it will also be possible for sipXconfig to clearly > > > demonstrate if "shared line" > > > functionality is available for the specific lines > > > (2) has the advantage of being easier to configure - one > > click and all > > > user's accounts (acttually all on the phones that support > > it) become > > > shared > > > > > > I am OK with either approach. Can anyone tell a story that would > > > clearly demonstrate that one is better than the other? > > > > > > > > > > The problem with (1) is that it takes two to share. If you add the > > BossUser as a line on the Admin's set, and mark it as "shared", you > > get nowhere. You have to go to the Boss's set and mark it > as "shared" > > there as well. So I vote for (2). > > +1 > > If it doesn't make sense for all lines to be shared by > default, then (2) is easier to configure. > > You will change the Polycom thirdPartyName and type > attributes to "hidden"? > who, me? :-) That's up to the config folks. We seem to expose a lot of low-level Polycom stuff. We could set the fields based on the "shared" setting, but allow them to be over-ridden, or make them read-only, or we could hide them. No opinion here.
Carolyn _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
