Hello,
I’ve been using my configuration script for a while without problems on 2.3.x
releases, but, with 3.0.x some errors are coming.
Syntax changes are not a problem, as fortunately changes are well documented on
the wikis :)
My problem is relative to replies (sl_send_reply and sl_reply_error) and the
places where we’re allowed to use them.
For sl_send_reply, send_reply alternative has solved my problem, but that’s not
as easy for sl_reply_error.
In every documentation, examples or forums i read, we use to do
if (!t_relay()) {
sl_reply_error();
}
In order to send an error in case of any problem with t_relay.
But sl_reply_error is forbidden in failure routes, so, should we consider there
will never have any problems with t_relay in failure routes?
In my case i use dispatcher, and, in case of failure, i try to find another
destination, and relay messages to it, until the call succeed…
If the first try fails, it triggers a failure route where i’m no more able to
send an error if the t_relay fails…
So is it safe not to check anymore the t_relay return on failure routes?
If not, is there any alternatives? I think about using send_reply instead of
sl_reply_error, but with what arguments? $err.rcode and $err.rreason ?
Thank you for your help and comments.
Regards
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
