[asterisk-dev] Adding new ARI for application execute

[Joshua C. Colp]

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019, at 7:16 PM, Sungtae Kim wrote:

<snip>

> >>> What events are created? Do they get propagated to ARI?
> 
> It was looks like this.
> 
> Dial: https://pastebin.com/8tdBZBrM
> 
> Confbridge: https://pastebin.com/FLjJDDNT
> 
> Transfer: https://pastebin.com/GmkCupyg
> 
> The ARI couldn't get receive the module's event such as QueueJoin. 
> Because the module subscription is not ready yet. Will implementing this 
> as we had a talk before(new subscription type for module).

This is something else that would need to be documented, and asked for actual users whether they would expect such a thing and could tolerate it. You still receive events for things you didn't directly initiate. That is: The applications can create events based on what they are doing.

> 
> >>>
> >>>> Confbridge: It created new bridge and stayed there. After destroying the
> >>>> bridge, the original channel gets back to waiting for ARI request.
> >>>>
> >>>> Transfer: Didn't work. It didn't do the transfer but no hangup as well.
> >>>> Haven't look that in depth, will figure out why.
> >>>>
> >>>> Because if the Stasis calls the this ARI, the application taking the
> >>>> ownership(sort of).
> >>>>
> >>>> But the Stasis()/ARI still can send the ARI request to the channel.
> >>> Can you explain what you mean here?
> I was taking about Hangup. If the ARI executed the application, the 
> application does blocking process. But ARI can send the Hangup request 
> via ARI while its executing.

Right, it can currently hang it up only.

> >>>
> >>>> I agree that some of the application(i.e. park) doesn't really respect
> >>>> the AST_SOFTHANGUP_ASYNCGOTO signal somehow. But I think this is not
> >>>> this feature's problem this is the application's problem. Because I can
> >>>> see the same behaviors with 'Redirect' AMI action as well. And this
> >>>> could be fixed in another way.
> >>>>
> >>>>> There's a lot of unknowns as to how exactly everything would behave in my mind and they'd need to be answered.
> >>> Essentially I think there would need to be an accepted list or a denied list of applications that are just incompatible with this. It would also be good to get feedback from other people as to what they'd expect and how they would expect to interact/use this new functionality. The asterisk-app-dev mailing list may catch their attention.
> 
> Thank you for giving me an idea. But I'm not clear how to do this. As 
> you can see I'm terrible about writing. :P
> 
> I can make a list of what I've tested after done this work.  But need 
> some help to complete the list later.

I think posting to asterisk-app-dev asking what dialplan applications people still find themselves needing to go into the dialplan for from their ARI application would be useful, as well as why and if they would be fine with a limited set of applications being permitted.

As for making the list, I think starting with a minimal allowed list based on what people actually need or use would be best so that everything doesn't have to be tested.

-- 
Joshua C. Colp
Digium - A Sangoma Company | Senior Software Developer
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - US
Check us out at: www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org