[Asterisk-doc] "The Extensions.conf Cookbook" chapter

[Nick Bachmann]

Jared Smith wrote:

>On Mon, 2003-12-29 at 21:55, Steven Critchfield wrote:
>  
>
>>>Configuring Channels
>>>  The PBX Side of Asterisk
>>>     Zaptel cards and config
>>>     Configurating Zapata
>>>     Channel Banks
>>>     PRI/Channelized Voice T1s
>>>     CAPI/ISDN
>>>     ... etc
>>>  The VoIP side of Asterisk
>>>     Configurating SIP
>>>     Configurating IAX
>>>     Configurating H323/OH323
>>>     ... etc
>>>  Sample Configurations (Working Sample Configurations)
>>>      
>>>
>>While this might be helpful, but in a print form this is a lot of space
>>that is not much more than what the cookbook and a few pieces will be.
>>Not to mention there is a sample that comes with the asterisk source. 
>>    
>>
>
>Unfortunately, the sample that comes with the asterisk source has very
>little explanation.  Somewhere in the book we should have a couple of
>well-documented sample configurations, so that people can at least get
>to the "Look! I made a phone ring!" stage.  I don't really care if this
>gets pushed to an Appendix or maybe even just the website... but it
>ought to be *somewhere*.  (Or, maybe we just point them to one of the
>other third-party Asterisk websites?!?)
>
Perhaps, then, what is needed is a basic to advanced approach.  First, 
you give the reader an example extensions.conf with basic details: 
contexts, extensions, etc. to introduce them to what they're dealing 
with.  Then, break down all the pieces and go over them thouroughly. 
 Finally, put them all back togeather with advaned extensions.conf.

Think about how you learned programming.  At least for me, when I 
learned C++ and Perl (the first languages I used a book to learn), I was 
first given a program.  I had to type it and run it.  (It was something 
stupid, like counting peas in a pod).  Then, the programming book broke 
it down statement-by-statement and I got to learn about variables, how 
they were assigned, I/O functions, and the like.  I always thought this 
was a good way to learn: if I were to be lectured first about constructs 
and objects and variables, I would have skimmed.  Then, when I was given 
an example, I would only half-way understand.  With the example first, I 
was excited to find how exactally how the magic was worked by the 
program.  When I did graduate computer classes for teachers, we used a 
the same technique (adapted for instructor-led classes): I do it, I tell 
you how I did it, you do it, I give you a challenge (then the process 
repeats: I do the challenge...).

While I agree with Steven that there are people who are better served as 
customers, it seems like a lot of smart people really can get hung up on 
getting the details first and the example later.

Nick