On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 17:03 +0200, Cristi Starasciuc wrote: > The way I see it, after some hot debates around here: > > mailboxprefs. xml is owned by sipXivr. SipXconfig should write it > *through* sipXivr's REST interface. > > But: as the wiki says (http://sipx-wiki.calivia.com/index.php/SipXivr% > 27s_RESTful_api): Requests are currently unauthenticated and not https > protected, but they are only accepted from the "localhost" or "local > IP address".
Well, that's just a bug (and a bad one that should be fixed). It's part of why Voicemail cannot presently be on a distributed system, and that's a service that many admins would strongly prefer be separate. > What if IVR is installed on another host in a distributed environment. As above, currently broken. > How would sipXconfig access that REST? I know, (and correct me if I'm > wrong) that right now sipXIvr is installed on the same machine as > sipXconfig, but can we take this for granted? In the future this might > change, causing a lot of headaches when that happens. The security bug should be fixed, and then that problem becomes no different than sipXconfig using the remote apis provided by the supervisor and various other services. > I strongly believe that (as with other configuration stuff) sipXconfig > should expose active greeting related actions through REST and IVR > should consume it. > This way, there will be just one entity holding the config and one > using it (of course anyone can use it). One entity is good, but it should be the application, not sipXconfig. _______________________________________________ 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/
