Hi Daniel,

sounds good to me, indeed more consistent.



Am 27.08.19 um 13:36 schrieb Daniel-Constantin Mierla:
> Hello,
> just discovered what I consider to be an inconsistency in naming and
> behaviour for event_route blocks for local-request and local-response
> and starting a discussion here to see how to move on.
> The event_route[tm:local-request] is executed before sending there local
> generated request out (allowing also to change its content, drop,
> etc...). This event route is quite popular event route used when the
> local generated requests need to be checked or updates.
> The event_route[tm:local-response] is executed after the response is
> sent out, obviously no possibility to change anymore the content. I
> haven't checked the code for event_route[sl:local-response], but based
> on commit message should be the same.
> I haven't used the local-response so far at all, today after a
> discussion on sr-users I wanted to enable kemi callback for
> tm:local-response and I noticed that behaviour in the code, even I
> expected to be like local-request (before sending out).
> I am not sure how much used are the event routes for tm:local-response
> and sl:local-response, I haven't seen any questions about them so far on
> mailing lists, that's why I am asking here if would make sense to rename
> them like tm:local-response-sent and sl:local-response-sent to properly
> reflect when they are executed. I am  expecting that they are very few
> used so far,  so no big head ache with upgrades and bringing some
> consistency around (this change to be part of next major release).
> It can stay like now with proper documentation, however in the future if
> one want and event route for local responses before being sent out,
> there will be more confusion, imo ...
> Cheers,
> Daniel
Henning Westerholt - https://skalatan.de/blog/
Kamailio services - https://skalatan.de/services

Kamailio (SER) - Users Mailing List

Reply via email to