[asterisk-dev] Command Syntax -- weird?

[Peter Beckman]

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006, Tilghman Lesher wrote:

>> It must add a lot of code to parse out all of that stuff, and
>> having an inconsistent method of calling functions make both
>> documentation confusing and the user/admin confused.  It makes
>> Asterisk seem cobbled together, and though it may be, the
>> disconnect between a unified code front seems like more of a hack,
>> rather than the production-ready and profesional front I think
>> Asterisk really has.
>
> I don't see how this has anything to do with an inconsistent method
> of calling applications (again, these are applications, not
> functions; functions are something different).  The method of calling
> applications is entirely consistent.  The order of the arguments to
> the application is what you appear to have trouble understanding.

  Sorry, I'm new to Asterisk, so my name-calling :-) seems to be inaccurate.

  I didn't mean internally to Asterisk, I meant as an end-user of Asterisk.
  The fact that required parameters passed to an application sometimes come
  at the beginning, sometimes in the middle, and sometimes at the end seems
  to be inconsistent.  The fact that flags to voicemail (though you point
  out that his is changing - sweet!) are part of the mailbox# string is
  confusing when the Dial flags are a comma delimited part of the
  parameters.  That's what I meant, though I hope I've explained it better
  here. :-)

>>   Not even to unify the codebase?
>
> Labels are already consistent across the codebase.  What you're having
> trouble with is understanding that labels are parsed right-to-left.
> This isn't an inconsistency -- it's simply different from how
> other types of arguments are parsed.

  I can understand right-to-left, but then wouldn't all required
  parameter(s) be the last parameter(s) passed to the application, and the
  optional parameters be listed first?  That's not the case with Dial(),
  right?

>> I think Asterisk is a great tool, and very powerful, but without good,
>> solid, accurate and up-to-date online web-based documentation, it is a
>> tool for the tinkerer, not the masses.
>
> I think you've just made an argument for why the coders behind the
> project should boot the documenters.  :-)  I'm not saying we should do
> that, but Asterisk has always been for the tinkerer; it will never be
> for the masses.  This is the concept that a lot of people seem to have
> trouble understanding -- the community of developers that support an
> open source project do so for their mutual benefit, not to create a
> super-polished application that the typical computer user can use.

  That's disappointing.  The voip-info wiki seems to be a cry for good
  documentation.  The docs there are inconsistent, usually out of date, and
  are difficult at times to understand.  But that's the best documentation
  Asterisk has -- documentation written by a bunch of people, developers and
  users, who benefit enough from Asterisk to be willing to document this
  software for free, anonymously.

  It seems a lot of hard work goes into Asterisk by its developers.  Many
  businesses, including mine, rely on Asterisk every day.  The VoIP world is
  growing at a phenomenal rate, and Asterisk seems like the perfect glue to
  bring it all together, for businesses, tinkerers, and for the geeky
  homeowner.

  I think Asterisk deserves to have great, polished documentation, and I
  think the effort to make Asterisk "a super-polished application" is very
  little.  It seems to be pretty well polished already -- it sure hasn't
  crashed on me yet.

  Is there some sort of general desire to keep Asterisk from being
  "super-polished?"

Beckman
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Beckman                                                  Internet Guy
beckman at purplecow.com                             http://www.purplecow.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------