[asterisk-dev] Re: [asterisk-commits] oej: branch oej/moremanager r63358 - in /team/oej/moremanager: ./ channels/

[Olle E Johansson]

8 maj 2007 kl. 15.08 skrev Kevin P. Fleming:

> asterisk-commits at lists.digium.com wrote:
>> Author: oej
>> Date: Tue May  8 00:40:01 2007
>> New Revision: 63358
>>
>> URL: http://svn.digium.com/view/asterisk?view=rev&rev=63358
>> Log:
>> After thinking about it, adding yet another use of "Status:"  
>> wasn't a good idea (TM).
>
> Why is that? Individual lines of manager events don't 'stand on their
> own' anyway, they have to be interpreted in the context of the entire
> event. I don't see any value in repeating the 'Hold' part of this  
> event
> in Status header; if that was necessary, then 'Channel' should be
> 'HoldChannel', etc.
>
> I'd much prefer to see less unique header names and more reasonable
> re-use of existing header names, given that the event name itself
> provides plenty of context for interpretation of the rest of the  
> headers.

Absolutely, but having Status:  with various values - strings, numbers,
planets, gps positions and on/off boolean values is not what I  
personally think is good syntax.
Like the Channel: header we used in so many different places with
totally different values.

Maybe we should standardize a boolean status header that we
can use for on/off situations.,,,

HoldStatus can be used in other events, when you want to report the
hold status. Easy to learn, easy to understand...

/O