On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Paul Mossman <[email protected]> wrote: > Ranga wrote: >> The current GUI implicitly supposes a 1-1 mapping between >> ITSP and gateway. What we need is a many to one mapping from >> gateway to ITSP account. > > Why is the 1-1 mapping bad?
> > In most cases the mapping is 1-1. In the few cases it isn't 1-1, then > the admin needs to enter the same ITSP credentials a couple of extra > times. Minor inconvenience. I guess it is fine. Not the design I would prefer but we can revisit the GUI issue later. > > On the other hand, introducing the notion of an ITSP Account that must > be independently created/configured, and then linked back to a Gateway > instance... That's a lot of complexity to add for minimal benefit in a > minority of scenarios. They are logically different things. Hence they should be configured independently ( at least that is my notion of good GUI design). An ITSP record is distinct from another ITSP record if : Domain is different OR user name is different OR proxy address is different OR registrar address is different OR ITSP proxy port is different OR registrar port is different. .... There are quite a few fields on the ITSP screen. We can make some simplifying assumptions. I think User Name and domain would be enough to cover almost all cases. i.e. if you have two accounts from the same ITSP then they must have different user names to be considered different. However, I do not consider this very good user interface design because if you have two identical ones with conflicting settings in any of the other parameters ( for example any of the advanced parameters) which one will you pick? > > >> Also, you can enter identical ITSP information twice in the >> GUI in which case you get two records in sipxbridge.xml >> which are identical except for the line ID. This is unacceptable. > > Yes. The sipxbridge.xml generation problem should be fixed. That's the > root problem behind XX-4785 right? Of course it is just a detail and not the root problem of 4785.. I do not recall making the claim that it is the "root problem behind xx-4785" It is not valid data design to have multiple records for a single ITSP. I think we agree on this point. What would you do if you have two ITSP accounts that have the same name and domain but differ on one of the other settings ? I assume you would generate two accounts. That is how your UI design affects your generated sipxbridge.xml I think it is best to defer this feature rather than implement it in a suboptimal fashion. > > If the current UI somehow prevents this fix, then please explain how. See above. The UI does not prevent the fix but it can lead to conflicts. So long as you are willing to flag the conflict and not accept invalid configurations UI does not preclude the fix. Regards, Ranga > > Thanks. > > > -Paul > [email protected] > > > > > > > -- M. Ranganathan _______________________________________________ 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/
