[asterisk-dev] Lightweight keepalive for websockets?

[Matthew Jordan]

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Jeremy Lainé <jeremy.laine at m4x.org> wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback, it's good to have alternatives. FYI, as a workaround I am
> currently using qualify=yes.
>
> However I'd still like to understand why the "keepalive" option is currently not being
> applied to websockets. The option is there, and is implemented for multiple transports, so
> I'd like to understand the rationale for not having websocket support.

Both of those features were written for Asterisk 11, however,
lightweight NAT keep-alive was written prior to WebSocket support.

> Either this is by design, in which case it needs to be documented, or it's an oversight,
> in which case I'd be happy to fix it.

I'd go with oversight.

-- 
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