[asterisk-dev] [Code Review] SIP: peer matching by callbackextension

[David Vossel]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Olle E. Johansson" <oej at edvina.net>
> To: "Asterisk Developers Mailing List" <asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com>
> Cc: "David Vossel" <dvossel at digium.com>, "Nick Lewis" <Nick.Lewis at atltelecom.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 7, 2010 12:45:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [asterisk-dev] [Code Review] SIP: peer matching by callbackextension
> 7 jul 2010 kl. 17.47 skrev David Vossel:
> 
> 
> I am a bit tired of this discussion coming up again and again. I am
> obviously alone in being ashamed of the lack of architectural thinking
> in this area, as well as having experimental code for multiple years.
> So don't let me stop you, just keep on adding layers of patches that
> will certainly break stuff...

What are we breaking here?  Is this just a feeling you have or do you know something that will break because of this patch?

> 
> Just so you know the history: I opposed the callbackextension as well,
> since that was poorly designed. And I have several times stated that I
> have alternative code.

It is not to late to do something about this before 1.8 is branched.  Put your code on reviewboard so it can get reviewed and committed.

> 
> If you press this in regardless, I might as well add my matchinpeer
> stuff that has been in production for a long time, but also will be
> confusing to the existing peer/user/friend/whatever messy
> architecture. It's been in a branch for over a year I guess, and I
> have so far had no feedback from anyone on this list on it - bad or
> good - except for Klaus that also understands SIP.
>

I'm sure you'll get some serious feedback if you put it on reviewboard.

> I just wish I had time and resources to clean this mess up and create
> a solution we could be proud of. I have not, you have. Which is why it

All you have to do is tell us what you want in direct terms and maybe we can do something about it.  Simply saying it is a mess and that we should fix it is not productive.  I am unfamiliar with the other problems associated with peer matching, all I know is that callbackextension matching doesn't work the way I (and others) expect it to.  This is a very direct patch aimed at solving that problem.

If you have an architectural plan that can help us move in what you believe is the right direction lets discuss it.  I do not understand what you want done.

> makes me so sad to see our product treated this way. We just have to

Help us do something about it.  You don't have to code it, just at least give us an idea of what you are talking about.  If this was a previous discussion that I missed then point me to it.

> accept that we have different views in this area and will end up with
> different code bases also for 1.8.
> 
> /O

I need something more to go on here Olle.  This issue has been open since last year and your opposition has not offered anything in the way of moving us to a solution.  I'm happy to work with you on this if you help us move towards a more complete solution that addresses all of your peer matching concerns.  We need a productive discussion here though, not a "I'm ashamed of what we have done", but instead a "I see what you are doing here, here are my concerns, and here are some ideas I have to address them".  Until you bring that to the table I have no idea how this can move forward in a way you will be proud of.

~Vossel