Evgeniy Khramtsov wrote:
> I'm just wondering why transactionlayer doesn't "pass to core" incoming
> CANCEL requests which match against existing INVITE-transaction? This
> means that yxa application never knows about cancelling the INVITE it
> has received.
From src/transactionlayer/servertransaction.erl (module documentation) :
%%% The application should 'adopt' the server transaction process, and
%%% then tell it what response(s) to send.
%%%
%%% After adopting a server transaction, the application can get the
%%% following signals from the server transaction :
%%%
%%% {servertransaction_cancelled, Pid, ExtraHeaders} - the
%%% transaction layer has received a CANCEL matching this server
%%% transaction.
%%% Pid = pid() of server transaction
%%% ExtraHeaders = list() of {Key, ValueList} tuples - headers
%%% from the CANCEL request that should be
%%% passed on to any downstream entitys
Having the transactionlayer "pass to core" the CANCEL requests doesn't
seem like the right thing to do, since the YXA app doesn't really have a
say in the matter - the client has already decided to cancel the INVITE.
If you "adopt" the INVITE server transaction, you will get an
{servertransaction_cancelled, ...} signal though so that you know the
INVITE was cancelled.
/Fredrik
_______________________________________________
Yxa-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.su.se/mailman/listinfo/yxa-devel
