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

Eric Wieling EWieling at nyigc.com
Fri Feb 14 00:19:03 CST 2014

We use extensions.conf, AEL, and AGI scripts.    Debugging AEL scripts can be....interesting, but worth it.   I also like being able to program in a real language

Our extensions.conf handles the incoming call initially, an AGI is then run which talks to the database and does the heavy lifting.  It sets a bunch of channel variables and passes control back to the dialplan, in case something custom needs to be done.  An AEL script with a few macros in it does the actual dialing and is called after the custom stuff is done.    The AEL scripts are seldom changed.  

I'm not a fan of dialing from inside AGIs due to a traumatic experience trying that back in the 0.65 / 1.2 eras, all of that is handled in the AEL script.

-----Original Message-----
From: asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Steve Edwards
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2014 8:34 PM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] How does extensions.lua compares to extensions.conf ?

On Wed, 12 Feb 2014, Olivier wrote:

> How does extensions.lua compares to extensions.conf or extensions.ael 
> on stability, performance and features ?

I'm a 1.2 Luddite, but...

I used AEL for a system a couple of years ago.

Even suffering through some syntactical inconsistencies and parsing bugs and a general lack of meaningful error messages when loading the dialplan, the result was a much more maintainable system.

It was very refreshing being able to program in a 'real' programming language rather than something reminiscent of a deck of punch cards :)
Steve Edwards       sedwards at sedwards.com      Voice: +1-760-468-3867 PST

More information about the asterisk-users mailing list