Thank you Bogdan...
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <[email protected]>wrote: > ** > Hi Ali, > > Added on the list http://www.opensips.org/Main/Ver190#toc9 with a quite > high priority ;). > > Regards, > > Bogdan-Andrei Iancu > OpenSIPS Founder and Developerhttp://www.opensips-solutions.com > > > On 11/08/2012 07:06 PM, Ali Pey wrote: > > I second this as well. Named flags would make debugging and scripting > quite simpler. > > Regards, > Ali > > > > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi Michael, >> >> You can already use names for the route, not only numerical IDs (without >> the need of defining). >> >> For flags, you can use only numbers, indeed - usually I use M4 as text >> preprocessor to do different complex ops over the script (like defines, >> ifdefs, etc). >> But maybe a built in support for names of flags will not be a big issue, >> especially it is not a big deal. >> >> Regards, >> >> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu >> OpenSIPS Founder and Developer >> http://www.opensips-solutions.com >> >> >> >> On 11/08/2012 01:22 PM, Michael Renzmann wrote: >> >>> Hi all. >>> >>> I'm relatively new to OpenSIPS and still am at the very beginning of >>> learning how to tame this wonderful beast ;-). >>> >>> One thing that I, personally, find pretty uncomfortable is that in >>> various >>> places in the opensips.cfg one needs to use plain numbers to define or >>> modify the behaviour. That easily results in constructs like: >>> >>> === cut === >>> route { >>> ... >>> route(42); >>> ... >>> } >>> >>> route[42] { >>> ... >>> setflag(8); >>> ... >>> } >>> === cut === >>> >>> Obviously, it is possible to memorize the meaning of the different >>> numbers >>> depending on the context they are used in - this is what people do now >>> when they work with OpenSIPS. But I guess things may become pretty >>> painful >>> when you have a complex configuration and need to urgently debug an issue >>> in it which just has brought down a heavily loaded, productively used >>> OpenSIPS instance... >>> >>> Using comments certainly helps to relieve the problem a bit, but they can >>> not solve it. However, things would become much easier if one could use >>> "speaking names" instead of plain numbers: >>> >>> === cut === >>> define(ROUTE_NAT_DETECTION, 42); >>> define(FLAG_NAT_DETECTED, 8); >>> >>> route { >>> ... >>> route(ROUTE_NAT_DETECTION); >>> ... >>> } >>> >>> route[ROUTE_NAT_DETECTION] { >>> ... >>> setflag(FLAG_NAT_DETECTED); >>> ... >>> } >>> === cut === >>> >>> Yes, I am aware that this could also be achieved by using an external >>> macro preprocessor such as M4. But that would add another dependency - >>> one >>> which could be avoided if OpenSIPS had built-in support for simple macro >>> definitions like those shown in the example above. >>> >>> Bye, Mike >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Users mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing > [email protected]http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users > >
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
