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

[Tilghman Lesher]

On Wednesday 22 February 2006 15:33, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 February 2006 15:10, Edwin Groothuis wrote:
> > 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:
> > > - Channel 4:17
> > > - Channel 4:1
> > > - Channel 4:7
> > > - Zap/4:17
> > > - Zap/1:31
> > > - Zap/4:18
> > >
> > > What do you think?
>
> Keep in mind that when people don't voice opinions, it's usually
> because they don't feel strongly either way.  My personal take is
> that it looks fine, but I'm waiting to see the proposed patch on the
> bugtracker (or for someone who feels a little more strongly about
> this).

I've thought about this a little bit more, and I think we need to have a
channel name format which is significantly different, in order to make
it absolutely clear that it is specified as span/relative-channel,
rather than absolute-channel.  Just as a possible example, we should
continue to have absolute-channel specified as Zap/nnn, whereas the
span/relative-channel might be specified as Zap[ss/rrr].  This
notation makes it much more clear as to the meaning of the channel
specification.  In fact, just for clarity of the translation, we might
always specify the absolute channel, in a format such as:
Zap[ss/rrr](nnn), e.g. Zap[3/4](52) or Zap/52.

I'm not committed to the format example specified above, only to the
concept that the format should be more than just minorly different.

-- 
Tilghman