[asterisk-dev] GSoC 2010

[Chris Tooley]

On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 5:46 PM, Mat Murdock
<mmurdock at kimballequipment.com> wrote:
> On 2/1/2010 4:09 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
>> On 02/01/2010 05:05 PM, Chris Tooley wrote:
>>
>>> I have to say I completely agree. There are some things for which the
>>> Dialplan is great, and then there are things that really should be
>>> done in an AGI or EIVR application. The Dialplan should not be
>>> complicated to the point of being unusable by trying to include every
>>> possible feature and concept. Especially since, at some point, it
>>> becomes maintaining a programming language of it's own and is outside
>>> the scope of the project.
>>>
>> We are basically going up against design decisions made for Asterisk
>> ages ago.  The dialplan already is a programming language to some
>> extent.  I think our job today is to resist feature creep in the
>> "language" and only provide what is necessary.  I would much rather put
>> effort into making it easier to take advantage of the work that the
>> communities that actually specialize in making a programming language
>> have already done.
>>
>>
>
> I understand where you are coming from, but wouldn't such a function
> take core of one of the main reasons people jump use agi to begin with?
> It is my understanding that it is faster and less resource intensive to
> stay in the dialplan vs going to agi.
>
With FastAGI I don't think this is an appreciable difference, and
depending on the implementation FastAGI or ExternalIVR over a socket
should be just as fast.