Hi Brett, Brett Nemeroff wrote: > I agree with Richard here.. it's nice to be able to isolate branch > changes to not infect other branches. :) Do not get me wrong, this will not be lost, we will just need a different approach when implementing it. > > As for the contact header example given above.. I also agree with > Richard that the function should be made to perhaps be a little more > intuitive. > > Overall, like I said before, I think a lot of these issues can be > resolved with smart scriptwriting. This is a bit OT, but one thing I > think that would help [people like me] out a lot is if the functions > themselves would be smart enough to alert the scriptwriter of doing > stupid things.. For example, there have been a number of posts to the > mailing list regarding double updating headers and getting "weird" > results. instead of producing weird results, I'd think that it'd do > something like, only apply the last one (which I can understand the > complexity of saving the original msg along with all requested > changes..), or rejecting any duplicate efforts to change.. Either way, > there should be a generated WARNING message to indicate that you > probably didn't want to do that and that it's a scripting error. with the current approach is a bit difficult to detect such cases. I mean it is easy to make check if a function was called twice (like fix_nated_contactd just warn you if called twice); But you still have the case where you manually change from script the contact URI (via subst or other textops funcs) and then call the fix_nated_contact -> this will still lead to bogus results.
Regards, Bogdan > > That's my $0.02. :) > -Brett > > > On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Richard Revels <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Being able to make changes on a branch and have those changes > disappear when the branch does is very handy. > > So far, the issue of not being able to change a header in script > because it had already been changed in a function call hasn't been > a major issue for me either. I wonder if the example given in > another email of needing to add a tag after calling > fix_natted_contact couldn't be resolved by changing the > fix_natted_contact function to accept a tag parameter. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users > -- Bogdan-Andrei Iancu www.voice-system.ro _______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
