[Asterisk-Dev] ast_xxx function..?

[Matt Hess]

Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
>>> I agree.. it would allow a rfc-broken device to function properly  
>>> and on that reason alone should not be done. As a counter-point to  
>>> that.. doesn't asterisk put in stuff to inter-operate better with  
>>> other almost rfc compliant devices?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but only when it doesn't cause a performance penalty or  
>> maintenance burden.
> 
> 
> IMHO this looks like a small call to a function cleaning up a string.  
> It really can't do much of a performance
>  penalty, can it?
> 
> roy

I agree with your statement hence my initial approach of putting the 
nonce string cleaning into asterisk. But I can also see the other side 
that the approach of band-aid functions such as this is not optimal in 
that it does allow for rfc-broken devices to work better and who knows 
how much more broken they really are until full testing can be done on 
them. And to add to that.. I'd imagine if everyone started doing this 
all of these little helper functions can have an aggregate effect on 
performance.

So I guess the devs would have to decide what the balance really is as 
far as the benefit of having more devices function better when working 
with asterisk or having an overall leaner system which functions with 
rfc-compliant devices. Perhaps there's a balance to these but my 
intellect is slipping as it's been a long day for me.



> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Dev mailing list
> Asterisk-Dev at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: mhess.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 288 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/attachments/20050930/8311ae62/mhess.vcf