[asterisk-dev] Time to rename chan_gulp?

[Matthew Jordan]

On 05/06/2013 04:37 AM, jg wrote:
> Compared with Mitsubishi's "Pajero" disaster
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Pajero), "gulp" seems to be
> harmless.
> 
> Nevertheless, why not use a conservative approach and keep chan_sip and
> introduce a naming scheme for deprecated and obsolete channels, that
> could be used for overhauled channels in the future as well? After all,
> if for some reason the old tech cannot be abandoned, a variable can be
> used to dispatch the real name to centralize the channel selection.
> 
> jg
> 

I would caution against any approach that attempts to use "SIP" to refer
to the new channel driver.

1) Without major changes to Asterisk's channel core, it precludes
running both chan_sip and chan_gulp simultaneously. The ability to run
both together is of major benefit.

2) With major changes to Asterisk's channel core, it will easily lead to
confusing situations where someone intends to use chan_sip and instead
gets chan_gulp. Those bug reports will not be fun. In addition, any
'sharing' of technology prefix will inevitably add more complexity and
risk to something that is already a major change.

I'm perfectly fine with a name change and I'm agnostic as to what is
chosen, but I think the two channel drivers need to be distinct. That
implies at a minimum:
* Different channel technology identifiers in the dialplan
* Different prefixes for CLI commands
* Different configuration file names

Matt

-- 
Matthew Jordan
Digium, Inc. | Engineering Manager
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA
Check us out at: http://digium.com & http://asterisk.org