Hello,
On 08/10/08 19:15, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> Hi, imagine this simple case:
>
> --------------------------
> route {
> t_on_branch("1");
> t_on_failure("2");
>
> xlog("We are in 'route'");
> t_relay("1.1.1.1");
> }
>
> branch_route[1] {
> xlog("We are in 'branch_route[1]'");
> # do something....
> }
>
> failure_route[2] {
> xlog("We are in 'failure_route[2]'");
> append_branch();
> t_relay("2.2.2.2");
> }
> ---------------------------
>
>
> In case an error occurs when forwarding the request to 1.1.1.1 this would be
> the screen log output:
>
> We are in 'route'
> We are in 'branch_route[1]'
> We are in 'failure_route[2]'
> We are in 'branch_route[1]'
>
> This is: branch_route[1] will also be runned **again** after the failure
> route
> since it was loaded in the first forward attemp.
>
> I really don't know if this is intuitive or not. The only way to "dissable"
> branch_route[1] in the failure route is by adding:
>
> -------------------
> failure_route[2] {
> t_on_branch("2"); # <--- Dissable t_on_branch("1")
>
> xlog("We are in 'failure_route[2]'");
> append_branch();
> t_relay("2.2.2.2");
> }
>
> branch_route[2] {
> xlog("We are in 'branch_route[2]'");
> # Nothing to do here.
> # This route is neccesary to dissable t_on_branch("1")
> }
> ------------------
>
> This would show:
>
> We are in 'route'
> We are in 'branch_route[1]'
> We are in 'failure_route[2]'
> We are in 'branch_route[2]'
>
>
> What about if "t_on_branch" wouldn't remain loaded after a failure route or
> serial forking? wouldn't be more intuitive to re-enable it explicitely when
> required?
>
>
>
right, you have some good point, at least there should be a way to
reset calls of the branch_route. Please add it to the tracker.
Thanks,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users@lists.kamailio.org
http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
