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

[Steven]

On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 10:56 +0000, Bob Goddard wrote:
> Personally, I'd like to see different line types given different naming
> conventions. TDM, PRI, BRI and dummy should not all come under ZAP.
> Will it mean additional work, bloat and maintenance? Yes, but as I see
> them all being different carrier hardware then I don't see why not.
> If nothing else, it will help stop confusion. I can't help feeling
> though, that I am in a minority of one.

Hmm, let me point out why you are in the minority by taking your opinion
and stretching it a bit further.

Let us think about SIP for a moment, all SIP devices use the same
driver, but there are differing devices on the other end with differing
options and support. So let us split up SIP for Polycomms, Snoms,
Proxies, and whatever else...

Does that help point out why splitting the channel driver up because you
want to expose up the information about the transport?


-- 
Steven <critch at basesys.com>