Re: [Asterisk-java-users] Re: Problem with ReplyBuilderImpl.java

[Steve D. <Ste...@Su...>]

> What do you exactly need the raw reply for?

You answered it at the end of the next paragraph.

> When looking at the fastagi-test script supplied with asterisk the
> checkresult subroutine checks the status code and the result.
> All parts of the reply are available in AGIReply, so these two checks
> could be implemented using getStatusCode() == SC_SUCCESS and checking
> for getResult() to be a String representation of an Integer.
> The raw reply string is only printed in case of a failure.

Yep, and that is functionality not easily obtained.  Note there are 
other issues
that make a "port" difficult.  One is throwing an exception if status 
520 (or was it 510)
is returned.  Another, but only because it is time consuming, is 
listing the request
environment key/values.  Remember, I was doing this to help me learn
Asterisk-Java.  It pointed up some issues.  I'm not sure if they are 
important or not.

> If it is a real requirement to have the raw reply available I can 
> easily
> add it

I can't say it's a "real" requirement, more like a "nice to have".

>  as you suggested but as the purpose of asterisk-java is to hide
> the raw protocol from the Java developer I am not sure it really makes
> much sense.
> What do you think?

I see the value in that.  But I also think it's valuable to have access 
to the underlying
raw data in case someone needs it in an unanticipated way.

If I had my way, and I guess I could, I'd get rid of ReplyBuilder 
altogether.  I'd hand
the list of lines to AGIReply in it's constructor and let them stay 
cached in AGIReply,
giving access to (at least the first) line outside of the object.  The 
current getters would
become convenience methods that perform lazy evaluations if they are 
called.  Of
course the results are cached, not computed everytime.  No need for 
setters.  Frankly
I'm not sure why you chose to build the reply outside of the reply 
object.

One could probably get rid of RequestBuilder in the same way.

Perhaps I should put my thoughts into code and forward it to the 
mailing list for
consideration/discussion.

Thanks for a nice framework!

Steve