asterisk-java-devel

[Asterisk-java-devel] 0009924: Responses to Manager Commands Should Be Called 'Responses' and not 'Events'

[Martin S. <ma...@be...>]

I can see Stefan and I were both monitoring:
http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=9924

I'm not sure how I feel about that, other than it would have been a good
semantic change. What do people think?

Martin Smith, Systems Developer
ma...@be...
Bureau of Economic and Business Research
University of Florida
(352) 392-0171 Ext. 221 

Re: [Asterisk-java-devel] 0009924: Responses to Manager Commands Should Be Called 'Responses' and not 'Events'

[Stefan R. <ste...@re...>]

Martin Smith wrote:
> I'm not sure how I feel about that, other than it would have been a good
> semantic change. What do people think?

I am not sure about my feelings on this issue.
On the one hand you are right, that the current state of AMI is not
optimal, on the other hand we know how to deal with it and the code is
in place.
A major change in the inner workings of AMI could make it hard to keep
Asterisk-Java to work seamlessly with different versions of Asterisk.

My favorite would be to have a proposal for a formal specification that
defines AMI (or a new AMI) form the ground up.

=Stefan

-- 
reuter network consulting
Neusser Str. 110
50760 Koeln
Germany
Telefon: +49 221 1305699-0
Telefax: +49 221 1305699-90
E-Mail:  ste...@re...
Jabber:  ste...@re...
WWW:     http://www.reucon.com

Steuernummern 215/5140/1791 USt-IdNr. DE220701760

Re: [Asterisk-java-devel] 0009924: Responses to Manager Commands Should Be Called 'Responses' and not 'Events'

[T. L. P. T. <tom...@gm...>]

Martin:
 I believe that this change could be useful in the near future, maybe in the
next major release. But I agree with Stefan in the fact that it would be
better to have a complete specification of the protocol first, being
discussed first with the Asterisk developers and users communities.
 This way, more users and developers will be aware of this change; and they
could setup a road map to plan, design, code and test their frameworks and
applications with the necessary time. From my experience, this major changes
in minor releases only generates bad scenarios:
* lost of confidence in the project, what was working in one version isn't
working in the next minor release.
* Some users modifying the source code of Asterisk to keep backward
compatibility,
* more users using older versions (and thus, don't testing new ones) to keep
their systems up and running.

Just my two cents.

Best regards, Tomás.

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Stefan Reuter <ste...@re...>
wrote:

> Martin Smith wrote:
> > I'm not sure how I feel about that, other than it would have been a good
> > semantic change. What do people think?
>
> I am not sure about my feelings on this issue.
> On the one hand you are right, that the current state of AMI is not
> optimal, on the other hand we know how to deal with it and the code is
> in place.
> A major change in the inner workings of AMI could make it hard to keep
> Asterisk-Java to work seamlessly with different versions of Asterisk.
>
> My favorite would be to have a proposal for a formal specification that
> defines AMI (or a new AMI) form the ground up.
>
> =Stefan
>
> --
> reuter network consulting
> Neusser Str. 110
> 50760 Koeln
> Germany
> Telefon: +49 221 1305699-0
> Telefax: +49 221 1305699-90
> E-Mail:  ste...@re...
> Jabber:  ste...@re...
> WWW:     http://www.reucon.com
>
> Steuernummern 215/5140/1791 USt-IdNr. DE220701760
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
> It's the best place to buy or sell services for
> just about anything Open Source.
>
> http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-java-devel mailing list
> Ast...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/asterisk-java-devel
>
>

Re: [Asterisk-java-devel] 0009924: Responses to Manager Commands Should Be Called 'Responses' and not 'Events'

[Carlos G M. <tr...@hu...>]

Stefan Reuter @ 01/04/2008 16:11 -0300 dixit:
> Martin Smith wrote:
>> I'm not sure how I feel about that, other than it would have been a good
>> semantic change. What do people think?
> 
> I am not sure about my feelings on this issue.
> On the one hand you are right, that the current state of AMI is not
> optimal, on the other hand we know how to deal with it and the code is
> in place.
> A major change in the inner workings of AMI could make it hard to keep
> Asterisk-Java to work seamlessly with different versions of Asterisk.
> 
> My favorite would be to have a proposal for a formal specification that
> defines AMI (or a new AMI) form the ground up.
> 
> =Stefan

Backward portability has its cost. Like the show [core] version thing.
Being "event" overloaded with 2 different semantics seems not that bad
if the difference is known. Making the difference explicit might help
someone sometime though.
Formal specifications are rare in my experience (useful ones at least :)
but trying to keep semantics coherent sounds good.

Back to the issue at hand, if I understand this correctly, the 
"non-event" events are unicasted to the action performer, so I don't 
know how much of a differenece would the proposed change make.

-Carlos

-- 
Carlos G Mendioroz  <tr...@hu...>  LW7 EQI  Argentina