Re: [Asterisk-java-devel] ChannelFactory for Live

[Colin W. <co...@bi...>]

> I did not discover the live packet yet, but I do not see the point in
> defining interfaces but coding against concrete classes. The interface
> is only useless overhead that does not give any advantage (like loose
> coupling), so in my personal opinion the refactoring seems to be a
> good idea.
>
As best as I can tell, it's mostly used to restrict access to methods that
generally shouldn't be called by programs using the API, such as those
responsible for firing Live Events, those responsible for handling the
direct ManagerEvents being handled, etc.

Why do you think it would be bad design to open the
> AsteriskChannelImpl to public? It provides a lot of functionality that
> I probably do not want to recode in custom channels, so allowing to
> inherit from the class would make things easier.

I agree, it does provide a lot of nice default functionality.  However, it
seems to me to be designed to be used internally only.  Most of the
properties of the channel are read-only in actuality, such as name, unique
id, caller id, etc, but have setters defined.  It could be confusing to
users to have these setters available publicly, since they don't do anything
to the channel itself, only to the java object representing it.


-- 
Colin Williams