On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Tilghman Lesher <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tilghman@meg.abyt.es" target="_blank">tilghman@meg.abyt.es</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 6:24 AM, Faidon Liambotis <<a href="mailto:paravoid@debian.org">paravoid@debian.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> On 11/13/12 13:14, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé wrote:<br>
>> I have some experience in this area and I can tell you we had to patch<br>
>> PJSIP and there was no way around.<br>
><br>
> If that's the case, then I'd say that PJSIP would be the wrong choice then.<br>
<br>
</div>So, in summary, we'd really like to use a 3rd party SIP stack, but it<br>
appears that no currently implemented SIP stack yet meets our<br>
criteria. IIRC, we had this same discussion at Digium about 4 years<br>
ago, with the same conclusion, and approximately nothing has changed<br>
since then.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Well, you pick something that's reasonably close and help fill the gaps. That's how open source works (or is supposed to work at least).</div><div><br></div><div>The questions are, what are the gaps, and how much work would it be to fill them?</div>
<div><br></div><div>One of the biggest takeaways from the discussion so far is that the health of the SIP stack's community and how well it plays with the rest of the open source ecosystem is very important to people. Ignoring all of that and just embedding something is unacceptable. The path to *not* doing that must be taken into account when figuring out how much work it will be to consume a given library. All of that is in addition to the technical merits of any given choice.</div>
<div><br></div><div>-- </div><div>Russell Bryant </div></div></div>