[asterisk-dev] Time to rename chan_gulp?

[Tzafrir Cohen]

On Fri, May 03, 2013 at 09:15:26PM +0200, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
> 
> 3 maj 2013 kl. 21:10 skrev Tilghman Lesher <tilghman at meg.abyt.es>:
> 
> > On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Andrew Latham <lathama at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> My personal feelings are to use chan_sip name for the work in
> >> chan_gulp and mark the origional sip work with a chan_sip1 or
> >> chan_oldsip.
> >> 
> >> I don't expect a lot of agreement but its how things are done in some circles.
> > 
> > We tend not to do things in this camp that have a tendency to severely
> > *break* anybody doing a single major version upgrade.  For that reason
> > alone, I think such a proposal is a non-starter.  It might otherwise
> > be possible for the "SIP" prefix to float between modules, such that
> > for the next version, "SIP" is defaulted towards the old driver, with
> > the old driver also possessing a name like "SIP1", thus allowing
> > admins to transition the name at their own pace, or even keep the old
> > name solidly on the old driver ad infinitum.
> 
> I don't like renaming and breaking.
> 
> On the other hand I have a branch where I configure the dial string in chan_sip,
> since in that branch I load chan_sip multiple times with different prefixes.
> So we can have the dial string configurable, with a default for "SIP" for the old one.

Is there a development goal of maintaining compatibility with the
current SIP technology dial string? How much should the "new" and "old"
sip.conf be compatible?

(No idea. Either way would be fine for both options. Reimplementation
may be a good time to throw away old cruft. But if there's no
compatibility, you'll have to change the name)

-- 
               Tzafrir Cohen
icq#16849755              jabber:tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com
+972-50-7952406           mailto:tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com
http://www.xorcom.com  iax:guest at local.xorcom.com/tzafrir