On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 1:37 AM, George Niculae <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi All, > > I've opened issue XX-6825 - the following scenario breaks unique ImId rule: > - user 201 without ImId is created - it will get the default ImId 201 > - user 202 is created and ImId set with 201 > This will result in user 201 and user 202 having the same ImId - 201. > > This is due to the fact that the default ImId is calculated using ImAccount > but is not saved as user ImId. > > A simple solution would be to make User.getImId to retrieve > ImAccount.getImId value if AddressBookEntry.getImId is empty - and to have > the default ImId saved in the database as well (checking if unique will > resume to existing mechanism, by selecting count of users with same ImId > account) > +1 I think that this is the way to go (on user creation - save default im id/default im display name in address_book_entry table: im_id/im_display_name fields). This approach will solve second part of http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XX-6768 too - with no other code change. > > A new column can be added in address_book_entry table if we need to store > also the default ImId value. > If first proposed solution is implemented, there is no need for an extra column for default im id or default im display name > > Please let me know if you see any drawback on this, > > Thanks, > George > Mircea > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ >
_______________________________________________ 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/
