[asterisk-users] How does extensions.lua compares to extensions.conf ?

[George Joseph]

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Paul Belanger <paul.belanger at polybeacon.com
> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Olivier <oza.4h07 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > How does extensions.lua compares to extensions.conf or extensions.ael on
> > stability, performance and features ?
> >
> > Would you recommand  extensions.lua as an easy/easier way to access
> > memcached, redis or equivalent ?
> >
> > Thoughs ? Comments ?
> >
> The lack of replies should give you your answer.  Extensions AEL and
> LUA don't get much action these days, I'm sure there are a few people
> that use them but extensions.conf has way more code coverage from a
> testing POV.
>
> Your better off using AGI if you want to leverage redis or memcached.
>
> Actually, I use Lua dialplans in several production systems.  Some are
used in conjunction with traditional dialplans and some are the only source
of dialplans.  They've always been rock solid.   I actually find it easier
to configure even a moderately complex dialplan than the traditional
dialplan syntax.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20140212/662f6ade/attachment.html>