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

Steven critch at basesys.com
Sat Feb 25 20:05:13 MST 2006

On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 18:19 +0000, Bob Goddard wrote:
> On Saturday 25 Feb 2006 16:00, Steven wrote:
> > 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?
> I think you are taking it to extreme. The SIP driver does not care what
> type of phone or node is at the other end and does not use any kernel
> devices. The zap stuff does and has to differentiate between pots and
> ISDN. Why don't we go the whole hog then and have ISDN, pots, SIP, SCCP,
> IAX and any other all have the same nomenclature then have * workout
> the actual channel type on its own?

Zap may need to know what the different types of technologies are, but
asterisk mostly doesn't. Oddly enough, while not very practical, the
various VoIP protocols could be moved under the Zap API and made
independent of asterisk.   

Steven <critch at basesys.com>

More information about the asterisk-dev mailing list