[asterisk-dev] Time to rename chan_gulp?

[Bakko]

Hello,

maybe a good channel name could be Chan_pjsip, thereby we can know that 
the new channel use pjsip stack (if i understand correctly).

Regards


El 06/05/2013 11:08, Matthew Jordan escribió:
> 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
>