[asterisk-dev] Zap channel naming is way too confusing

[Edwin Groothuis]

I don't believe that nobody else has an opinion about this...

On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 01:53:57PM +1100, Edwin Groothuis wrote:
> Please look with me to the following output:
> 
> -- Moving call from channel 94 to channel 110
> -- Channel 0/17, span 4 got hangup request
> Feb 20 13:41:43 WARNING[21081]: chan_zap.c:4789 zt_write: Unable to set linear mode on channel 110
> -- Zap/4:110-1 is busy
> -- Hungup 'Zap/4:110-1'
> == Everyone is busy/congested at this time (1:1/0/0)
> -- Executing Goto("Zap/31-1", "s-BUSY|1") in new stack
> -- Executing NoOp("Zap/31-1", "BYE") in new stack
> -- Hungup 'Zap/31-1'
> -- Zap/4:111-1 answered SIP/202.83.178.2-09a1dd00
> -- Hungup 'Zap/4:97-1'
> -- Executing NoOp("SIP/202.83.178.2-09a7a108", "BYE") in new stack
> -- Channel 0/1, span 7 got hangup request
> -- Hungup 'Zap/187-1'
> -- Hungup 'Zap/165-1'
> 
> That is...
> 
> - Channel 0/17, span 4
> - Channel 94
> - Channel 100
> - Zap/4:110
> - Zap/31-1
> - Zap/4:111
> 
> It would really make live, specially if you're trying to debug
> issues, to be able to have one naming for it.
> 
> Personally I think Zap/span:channel is the way to go, because there
> you see in a blink of the eye which trunkgroup and which channel
> you are talking about.
> 
> So that would have been:
> 
> - Channel 4:17
> - Channel 4:1
> - Channel 4:7
> - Zap/4:17
> - Zap/1:31
> - Zap/4:18
> 
> What do you think?

-- 
Edwin Groothuis      |            Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org
edwin at mavetju.org    |          Weblog: http://weblog.barnet.com.au/edwin/