[asterisk-dev] ARI, Stasis, and Dialplan

[Ben Ford]

Hey all,

Just a quick update - this functionality is now up for review on Gerrit,
and can be found here <https://gerrit.asterisk.org/#/c/asterisk/+/10882/>.

More eyes on it would be helpful!

On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 1:40 PM Seán C. McCord <ulexus at gmail.com> wrote:

> As Josh says, all calls would go to the app; the (completely
> non-user-facing and non-user-editable) context would be roughly
> equivalent to having fallthrough enabled and extension 's' going to
> the Stasis App.  You should not be able to assign an existing real
> context to an ARI app.  That would lead to confusion, which is one of
> the reasons why I like the idea of having deterministic context names.
>
> As to the channel-in-bridge on ARI app transfer, I would fully expect
> that channel to stay in whatever bridge it may be.  Bridges are
> logical link points between ARI apps anyway, and they can be
> manipulated by multiple ARI apps at any given time anyway (this
> assertion is from memory... it is possible I am mistaken here).  Now,
> as to whether the ARI app should automatically gain a subscription to
> member bridges, that's a good question.  I would lean toward not doing
> so, but I do not have a strong argument beyond simplicity.
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 1:25 PM Joshua C. Colp <jcolp at digium.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018, at 2:14 PM, Corey Farrell wrote:
> > > How will the ARI/dialplan integration handle specific extensions? For
> > > example if I have a stasis app which registers itself to dialplan as
> > > 'somecontext', how does this integration decide which extensions are
> > > handled by the app? Does that app get calls for all extensions or only
> > > specific extensions? Do we create a new type of ARI app which would
> > > respond to PBX switch callbacks where all calls go to the stasis router
> > > app which then accepts or rejects calls based on the ARI apps own
> > > extension list? For example if we have a context:
> > >
> > >  [from-outside]
> > >  exten => 7002052000,1,Stasis(myapp)
> > >  exten => 7002052001,1,Stasis(myapp)
> > > How do you envision replicating having these two extensions handled but
> > > all other extensions being invalid?
> >
> > The context would send all calls to that application (except for the h
> extension). That application would then be able to move that channel to
> another application according to its own routing logic if it wanted.
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> > --
> > _____________________________________________________________________
> > -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
> >
> > asterisk-dev mailing list
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
> >    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
>
>
>
> --
> Seán C. McCord
> ulexus at gmail.com
> CyCore Systems
>
> --
> _____________________________________________________________________
> -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
>
> asterisk-dev mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev



-- 
*Benjamin Ford*
Digium - A Sangoma Company | Software Engineer
445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - US
<https://maps.google.com/?q=445+Jan+Davis+Drive+NW+-+Huntsville,+AL+35806+-+US&entry=gmail&source=g>
Check us out at: https://digium.com · https://sangoma.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/attachments/20190125/4ff13b43/attachment.html>