[asterisk-dev] [Code Review] RTP monitoring branch: initial review

[Steve Totaro]

On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Tzafrir Cohen <tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com>wrote:

> Update:
>
> On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 09:12:05PM -0000, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> > https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/394/
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Review request for Asterisk Developers and Tzafrir Cohen.
> >
> >
> > Summary
> > -------
> >
> > I'm working on the RTP monitoring branch:
> >
> >   http://svn.digium.com/svn/asterisk/team/tzafrir/monitor-rtp/
> >
> http://svn.digium.com/svn/asterisk/team/tzafrir/monitor-rtp/doc/monitor-rtp.txt
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > The changes involved:
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> > 2. Allowing ast_writefile to write to a socket
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > Writing to a socket
> > -------------------
> > We hook into a mechnism that writes to files and want to convert it to
> > sending packets to a remote server. Writing to a file and writing to a
> > socket is basically the same (write(2)). Opening is slightly different.
>
> As of r224438 the interface is cleaner:
> http://svnview.digium.com/svn/asterisk?view=revision&revision=224438
>
> ast_writefile is no longer used. ast_writefd has been exposed as a
> separate interface function. The temporary
> ast_filestream_xxx_get_filename has been renamed to
> ast_filestream_get_fd_state() .
>
> The filename field of struct ast_filestream is still (ab)used to save
> the state information. Is it possible to add another member to that
> struct (be that a flag) without breaking ABI?
>
> Alternatively, another indicator for the fact that a struct
> ast_filestream was created with ast_writefd() rather than with
> ast_writefile is that the 'flags' field will have a value of 0, which
> makes no sense to a file you want to write to (O_RDONLY). But this is
> not such a clean approach, I guess.
>
>
Just run OrecX on the localhost 127.0.0.1 or another server with a mirrored
port.

Why reinvent the wheel?

Thanks,
Steve T
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/attachments/20091018/c962b906/attachment.htm