[asterisk-dev] Asterisk 11 configuration files

[Tilghman Lesher]

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Rod Dorman <rodd at polylogics.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 30, 2012, 10:48:26, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Paul Belanger
>> <paul.belanger at polybeacon.com> wrote:
>>>   ...
>>> 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.
>
> I'd lean towards dropping the res_ / chan_ / app_ prefixes and if a
> module needs multiple configuration files then append different
> suffixes.
>
> If there are common reasons for needing more that one config file
> perhaps having recommended suffixes would be useful too.

My preference for a policy is as follows:  if there's a possibility
that a name may be used in more than one context, then the context
becomes a prefix.  If not, then no prefix is used.  If a misjudgement
is made in the future (and a second module appears with the same name
in a different context), then for legacy purposes, a legacy module may
use the nonprefixed version as a fallback.  This makes most of the
existing files fall neatly into the policy, and the only things that
might need to be changed are a few channels (but let the prefixed
versions be used for legacy purposes).

-Tilghman