[asterisk-dev] Asterisk 11 configuration files

[Tilghman Lesher]

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Paul Belanger
<paul.belanger at polybeacon.com> wrote:
> On 12-08-23 10:35 PM, Paul Belanger wrote:
>>
>> I'm slowly starting to testing Asterisk 11 and noticed something about
>> our new modules config file names:
>>
>> chan_motif.so -> motif.conf
>>
>> and
>>
>> res_corosync.so -> res_corosync.conf
>> res_xmpp.so -> xmpp.conf
>>
>> When chan_dahdi was rewritten we moved to chan_dahdi.conf. Should we do
>> the same for chan_motif -> chan_motif.conf?
>>
>> Same for res_xmpp, we should move it to res_xmpp.conf.  This would line
>> up with the majority of resource modules config file names.  Like we did
>> for res_corosync.conf.
>>
> So it looks like there is some interest in doing this. But it might be more
> work then we can do for Asterisk 11.  At this point, since we have the new
> modules now we should at least come to an agreement on what we want the new
> filename format to be.
>
> For me, I like "module name == config file name convention" that russellb
> proposed.  Others like dropping the res_ / chan_ / app_ from the filename.
> Do we vote for them or just fight at the bike racks?  I'd also like to get
> more feed back from asterisk users and implementers. Perhaps a post to
> asterisk-users mailing list is in order.

That doesn't solve the problem of one module with many configuration
files.  You sound like you want to go ahead with an incomplete (or at
least, insufficient) proposal, and that's a problem.  Any proposal for
this issue needs to accomodate modules having multiple configuration
files, or it isn't a complete and workable solution.

> So, I suggest we try to decided which way we want to go with, update these
> new modules then try to deal with the other configuration files for Asterisk
> 12.  This of course will require some sort of upgrade path for previous
> versions and something we can talk more at AstriDevCon.
>
> Please reply with which method you prefer so we can start getting a tally.

At this point, I don't think we've come up with a workable solution,
so it sounds like we have no policy ready for Asterisk 12.

-Tilghman