[asterisk-dev] Re: Kernel modules => mainline kernel

[Matthew Fredrickson]

On Feb 12, 2007, at 12:27 PM, Benny Amorsen wrote:

>>>>>> "MF" == Matthew Fredrickson <creslin at digium.com> writes:
>
> MF> I think part of it is that we want to keep any changes we make
> MF> fairly accessible. What happens if we start rewriting some of the
> MF> APIs in zaptel and distributions start compiling it into the
> MF> kernel? That means that every user that wants to upgrade needs to
> MF> recompile their kernel.
>
> Zaptel needs a stable API in order to go into the mainline kernel. It
> is about time it got one anyway.

"It is about time it got one anyway" is not a good enough reason in 
itself to do it.  That's a personal opinion.

The API is fairly stable, however, it's much easier to control and 
change it if we do not have to depend on upstream maintainers to make 
"official" changes to it.  There have been a number of really good 
ideas suggested for improving zaptel performance (zero copy/mmap'd 
data) that might involve breaking the current API.  We don't want to be 
locked into the kernel's release cycle as well.

>
> An unstable API keeps you locked into Asterisk. A bugfix to Zaptel
> could be released which includes changes to the API, and users of
> competing software PBX'es would have to wait for those PBX'es to
> update to the new API. I presume that is why basically none of the
> Asterisk-competitors support Zaptel cards.

The reasons why other PBXs may or may not use zaptel probably are not 
because of that particular issue.  To use or not to use zaptel is a 
decision of the author of that project.

Matthew Fredrickson