[asterisk-dev] chan_ooh323 - use at your own risk?

[Tony Mountifield]

Russell, thanks for your reply...

In article <4837379A.3050002 at digium.com>,
Russell Bryant <russell at digium.com> wrote:
> Tony Mountifield wrote:
> > 1. At whose risk do I use other parts of asterisk? i.e. how does this differ?
> > I thought the risk was mine anyway....
> 
> That's true, but the real reason this is there is because of what you said in 
> question 2.
> 
> > 2. Why was it felt necessary to include the statement? Is there any
> > implication regarding the acceptance of and action on bug reports?
> 
> Exactly.  Bug reports without patches are not accepted for this module.

OK, well earlier I posted a bug #12715 highlighting some updates to 1.2
that were promoted to 1.4 but not then to trunk (which was probably an
oversight). I later also found some further updates for 1.2 that were
not even applied to 1.4.

Can these merges be actioned at this late stage? Or would it be better
for me to apply them by hand myself and submit patches to bring the files
up to date?

> > I've just started using chan_ooh323 (admittedly on Asterisk 1.2) and found
> > it feels much cleaner and snappier than the other H.323 implementations I
> > have tried in the past (I never got chan_h323 to work, and chan_oh323 was
> > a bloated resource hog). So it would be a pity to see chan_ooh323 stagnate.
> > I have a couple of pending bug reports and/or patches to submit.
> 
> Patches are welcome.
> 
> Also, chan_h323 should be much more usable in Asterisk 1.4 and 1.6.

Does it still use OpenH323 and pwLib? They were a royal pain to use, and
one of the main reasons why chan_oh323 was such as resource hog. I don't
know how much of them chan_h323 used. But chan_ooh323 is so much nicer by
not using them!

Cheers
Tony
-- 
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony at softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony at mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org