I do not agree with this, if there is no call back on failure, then how does the application know the hold request did not occur? Checking for a call something that does not happen if annoying, needing timers etc. Not good programming practice IMHO.
It is expected that the application knows if it has requested a hold or not and handles the OnHold() call back accordingly. If it did not get what it expected, it knows it failed.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I thought that if OnHold was not called with "HELD" state then Hold didn't occur.
I.e. we have HELD state only if OnHold was called.
Anyway, that's not a big issue.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
I do not agree with this, if there is no call back on failure, then how does the application know the hold request did not occur? Checking for a call something that does not happen if annoying, needing timers etc. Not good programming practice IMHO.
It is expected that the application knows if it has requested a hold or not and handles the OnHold() call back accordingly. If it did not get what it expected, it knows it failed.
I thought that if OnHold was not called with "HELD" state then Hold didn't occur.
I.e. we have HELD state only if OnHold was called.
Anyway, that's not a big issue.