[asterisk-dev] [Code Review] 2642: app_bridgewait: Add a name argument so that multiple holding bridges may be used

[Mark Michelson]

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/2642/#review9056
-----------------------------------------------------------



/trunk/apps/app_bridgewait.c
<https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/2642/#comment17793>

    The second sentence is a bit awkward. I understand the part about "for app_bridgewait purposes only" but I don't know what you had in mind by mentioning "does not reflect properties of the bridges created" .



/trunk/apps/app_bridgewait.c
<https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/2642/#comment17791>

    Make these defines all caps.



/trunk/apps/app_bridgewait.c
<https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/2642/#comment17792>

    Since holding_bridge is only used inside this while loop, you can put the RAII_VAR() line declaring holding_bridge within the while loop. This way, you won't need to put in explicit cleanup of the holding_bridge in this case where you have to re-loop.



/trunk/include/asterisk/bridging.h
<https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/2642/#comment17795>

    Indicate in the doxygen that a reference is returned.



/trunk/main/bridging.c
<https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/2642/#comment17794>

    It's typically a good idea not to assume what the integer values of enums are. This should be explicitly comparing to BRIDGE_CHANNEL_PUSH_SUCCESS.


- Mark Michelson


On July 2, 2013, 10:57 p.m., jrose wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/2642/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated July 2, 2013, 10:57 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Asterisk Developers, Matt Jordan and rmudgett.
> 
> 
> Bugs: ASTERISK-21922
>     https://issues.asterisk.org/jira/browse/ASTERISK-21922
> 
> 
> Repository: Asterisk
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Previously the holding bridge used for bridgewait was a single bridge that once created would stick around until the application was unloaded.
> 
> Now things are a little more complicated. Each holding bridge has a name and will be destroyed when it is empty. Since it's theoretically possible to have channels enter a holding bridge without going through the bridge wait application, it isn't always possible to deliberately control when the bridge will be destroyed, so the bridge can effectively be abandoned and set to be destroyed once it empties out.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   /trunk/apps/app_bridgewait.c 393517 
>   /trunk/include/asterisk/bridging.h 393517 
>   /trunk/main/bridging.c 393517 
> 
> Diff: https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/2642/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Tested multiple simultaneous holding bridges, multiple channels in the same holding bridge, what would happen if one channel entered as another one was leaving but before the bridge was destroyed, tested bridges emptying out, tested module unload and module load after unload.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> jrose
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/attachments/20130703/befe289e/attachment-0001.htm>