[asterisk-dev] [Code Review] 3173: chan_sip refactor - sip_route

[Paul Belanger]

> On Feb. 3, 2014, 9:41 p.m., Paul Belanger wrote:
> > So, I have some comments / concerns about the 'refactor' of chan_sip.  Basically, why are we doing it? I mean, now that chan_pjsip.c exists, I would very much like to see actually development of chan_sip.c stop and be focused on chan_pjsip.  Reason being, when ever we do refactor / add new features to chan_sip, we end up breaking something.
> > 
> > I know chan_pjsip is not feature par with chan_sip, however we should avoid reworking it when possible.
> > 
> > Thoughts?
> 
> Corey Farrell wrote:
>     chan_pjsip is brand new, I don't agree with chan_sip deprecation until chan_pjsip has seen widespread production use for more than a year.  I can understand your concerns about changes to chan_sip, but I feel the risk can be minimized with small changes and tests (see r3172).
>     
>     Currently 198 out of 736 unresolved bugs in JIRA are tagged with a chan_sip component, most of those over a year old.  I realize this is because chan_sip has plenty of bugs, but they don't get addressed because chan_sip is such a mess.  I think refactoring chan_sip into isolated components will help make it easier to troubleshoot and fix bugs.

I'm not saying we deprecate chan_sip, but more like actively avoid re factoring.  This was one of the reason we decided to do chan_pjsip in the first place, chan_sip became a beast that nobody could tame. Don't get me wrong, I believe bugs should be address however at the same time, we should be actively improving chan_pjsip.

So for the patch, I am happy we added a unit test, that'll help minimize regressions.


- Paul


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3173/#review10745
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Feb. 3, 2014, 7:48 p.m., Corey Farrell wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3173/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Feb. 3, 2014, 7:48 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Asterisk Developers.
> 
> 
> Bugs: ASTERISK-22582
>     https://issues.asterisk.org/jira/browse/ASTERISK-22582
> 
> 
> Repository: Asterisk
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Isolates code that manages struct sip_route.
> 
> * Move route code to sip/route.c + sip/include/route.h
> * Rename functions to sip_route_*
> * Replace ad-hoc list code with macro's from linkedlists.h
> * Create sip_route_process_header() to processes Path and Record-Route headers (previously done with different code in build_route and build_path)
> * Make sip_route uri accessor return a const
> * Move struct uriparams, struct contact and contactliststruct from sip.h to reqresp_parser.h.  sip/route.c uses reqresp_parser.h but not sip.h, this was a problem.  These moved declares are not used outside of reqresp_parser.
> * While modifying reqprep() the lack of {} caused me trouble.  I added them.
> * Code outside route.c treats sip_route as an opaque structure, using macro's or procedures for all access.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   /trunk/channels/sip/route.c PRE-CREATION 
>   /trunk/channels/sip/include/sip.h 407178 
>   /trunk/channels/sip/include/route.h PRE-CREATION 
>   /trunk/channels/sip/include/reqresp_parser.h 407178 
>   /trunk/channels/chan_sip.c 407178 
> 
> Diff: https://reviewboard.asterisk.org/r/3173/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Corey Farrell
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/attachments/20140204/d5128905/attachment.html>