--- On Fri, 12/4/09, Damian Krzeminski <[email protected]> wrote:
> George Niculae wrote:
> > --- On Fri, 12/4/09, Damian Krzeminski <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >> JIRA is a poor place to have a
> >> conversation, so I am bringing this here:
> >>
> >> Robert writes:
> >> http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XX-7170?focusedCommentId=45877
> >>
> >> "I think that there is one sipXconfig issue that
> remains.
> >> Here is the scenario:
> >>
> >> If I create a SIP user called 'X' and assign it IM
> ID 'Y'
> >> and then I try to
> >> create a new SIP user called 'Y', sipXconfig will
> refuse
> >> that on the
> >> grounds that the default IM ID it would assign to
> SIP user
> >> 'Y' would
> >> collide with the IM ID of SIP user 'X'.
> >>
> >> In general, it should be possible to add a new SIP
> user in
> >> sipXconfig even
> >> if its SIP user ID happens to match the IM ID of
> another
> >> SIP user.
> >> SipXconfig could be smarter in its default IM ID
> generation
> >> to avoid such
> >> collision (e.g. append a '_2')."
> >>
> >> I don't think it's true. I think sipXconfig
> refuses to
> >> create 'Y' because
> >> of the SIP alias conflict.
> >
> > Actually I think Robert is right - it collides with IM
> ID uniqueness rule and therefore user creation fails.
>
> But that's only because the patch for XX-6447 is not in,
> right? Once we
> actually start generating aliases we will have to stop
> people from using IM
> IDs that collide with SIP IDs.
> I am trying not to take sides here: I just don't see how we
> can have both
> what Robers wants and what Martin wants.
Agree, once XX-6447 is in place then the IM IDs will be checked to be unique in
the entire SIP id namespace - so we should rephrase the requirements here.
>
> >> I still don't think we can have it both ways and
> -
> >> regardless of an 'alias
> >> issue' - I think that generating default IM IDs
> that would
> >> work around
> >> naming conflict is a *bad* idea.
> >
> > What can be done here is to use an empty IM ID for
> this case - afterwards enabling the IM Account will fail if
> a valid IM ID is not provided.
> >
>
> Wouldn't it make enabling IM very awkward? Both from user
> and from
> implementation point of view. I don't think that we recheck
> IM IDs for all
> group members when enabling IM accounts for the entire
> group, and cost of
> doing that is probably prohibitive.
Didn't think at this one, just only on saving / enabling individual IM Accounts
- indeed it really needs code change to accommodate enabling IM account for
entire group and this can introduce big overhead.
George
_______________________________________________
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/
