[asterisk-dev] extensions.conf included contexts priorities

[Nicholas Campion]

So, if I understand this example taken one step further would be:

[long-distance]
exten => _1NXXNXXXXXX,1,Dial(IAX2/${UPSTREAM}/${EXTEN})
include => local

[local]
exten => _NXXXXXX,1,Dial(IAX2/${LOCALPROVIDER}/${EXTEN})
include => no-priv

[no-priv]
exten => _NXXXXXX,1,Dial(no-permissions-to-make-this-type-of-call)
exten => _1NXXNXXXXXX,1,Dial(no-permissions-to-make-this-type-of-call)

I started out disliking this method and trying to find a point of failure.
I would conclude that its not the "intuitive" method, but it does seem to be
functional.  I would, if I were *entirely* new, expect the include=> to
insert the values in the included context directly at that location.
Consider me enlightened.

On 4/24/07, Steve Murphy <murf at parsetree.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 20:26 -0400, Jared Smith wrote:
> > On 4/24/07, Steve Murphy <murf at parsetree.com> wrote:
> > > Trouble is, is this desired behavior? Or is having the contexts
> checked
> > > level by level until a match of any kind is found, the better
> procedure?
> >
> > Well, I for one desire the current behavior.  Everyone else can speak
> > for themselves, but it makes it easy to override an extension included
> > in a more-deeply-nested extension by putting its replacement in a
> > less-deeply-nested context.  If they were all pulled together into one
> > big ball of wax, we'd lose a lot of functionality.
>
> I'm glad to have this input! (It's actually easier to give the same
> functionality).
>
> >
> > > If you think choice (2) would be bad, I'd love to hear how you are
> > > depending on the recursive behavior of the included patterns.
> >
> > Here's just one example of the many ways I use the current behavior.
> >
> > [long-distance]
> > exten => _1NXXNXXXXXX,1,Dial(IAX2/${UPSTREAM}/${EXTEN})
> > include => local
> >
> > [local]
> > exten => _NXXXXXX,1,Dial(IAX2/${LOCALPROVIDER}/${EXTEN})
> > exten => _1NXXNXXXXXX,1,Dial(no-permissions-to-make-this-type-of-call)
>
> **Murphy gasps in astonishment**  This is very clever!!!
>
> How would you state this? I thought that this kind of search system
> would be best taken advantage of by supplying more specific patterns at
> the top levels, and having more general patterns below; this example is
> more like top levels getting
> higher precedence than lower.
>
> This example is really good, in that if just include the [local]
> context, you'll get the message that you don't have perms to make
> long-distance calls. But, including [long-distance] lets you dial
> long-distance, but without having to rewrite the [local] definitions.
> **very** clever. OK. I'm sold.
>
> >
> > > Jared's example is excellently obtuse! The inclusion tree looks
> > > something like this:
> >
> > I'll take that as a compliment!  It was carefully designed to
> > stimulate thought and discussion.
>
> You are taking it rightly, then! It's a well composed example. You could
> do this for a living!! ;)
>
> >
> > >
> > > foo +---+
> > >  (123)  |
> > >  (456)  |
> > >  (789)  |
> > >  (_5XX) |
> > >         |
> > >         +-- bar ----------+
> > >         |    (555)        |
> > >         |    (_XXX)       +--- baz-1
> > >         |                        (555)
> > >         |                        (333)
> > >         +-- baz-2
> > >              (555)
> > >              (333)
> > >
> > > Worse yet, if you entered 333, and bar didn't have the _XXX pattern,
> > > which would match, the baz-1 version, or the baz-2?
> >
> > The one in [baz-1].  Again, when Asterisk looks in the bar context and
> > doesn't find a match, it looks in its included contexts, and would
> > find a match in the [baz-1] context.  Asterisk is going to look *all
> > the way* through the [bar] context before moving on to the [baz-2]
> > context.  If this doesn't qualify as depth-first search, I'm not
> > seeing the reason why.
>
> You are correct, this is fundamentally depth-first; it's just the fact
> that it searches first all the way thru all the extensions defined in
> the current context, before recursion into the included context, that
> gives it a breadth-first sort of taste. But only a taste. Or would it be
> a nuance? A fragrance?  A hint? A whisper? A touch? A dash? An
> intimation? Oh, you know what I mean! I give up!
>
> murf
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --
>
> asterisk-dev mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/attachments/20070424/b29ad429/attachment.htm