[Asterisk-Users] Zapata not required??

[Greg Lim]

Since I'm going to be the one doing the porting, sure, I'll consider those.
I originally picked zapata because:
1. It was first thing I saw that had enough functionality.
2. Our original IVR uses Dialogic boards, and the hardware layer we
designed to hide some of Dialogic's complexities has a very similar interface
to zapata. IOW, our in-house T1 HAL matches zapata pretty closely.

I almost hate to ask here, but could you provide links to info on AGI 
and/or the C-level Asterisk API? I'm fairly new to Asterisk, etc.

-Greg


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Spencer" <markster at digium.com>
To: <asterisk-users at lists.digium.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Zapata not required??


> > Does this mean that zapata will no longer continue to be maintained?
> > I ask because my company has already developed an in-house IVR
> > with it's own concepts of scripts, etc. We had the intent to port it
> > to use the zapata library.
> 
> I think it is a good idea for us to keep the zapata library alive for
> non-Asterisk applications, however, the focus of our development is
> definitely on Asterisk.
> 
> Have you considered porting your in-house IVR to AGI or even just the
> C-level Asterisk API?  Porting to AGI would be extremely rapid in general,
> and even the Asterisk C-level API is still much easier and more intuitive
> than the zapata API.
> 
> Mark
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Users mailing list
> Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users