2006/4/20, John Novack (port) <<a href="mailto:jnovack@stromberg-carlson.org">jnovack@stromberg-carlson.org</a>>:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
There should be no need for TWO feature codes.<br><br></blockquote></div>I fully second that : what matters most is to satisfy users.<br>Unified transfer method offer :<br>- simplicity,<br>- hardware independance (think about mobile phones, or people occasionnaly using foreign language configured phones when visiting a sister company abroad)
<br>- and above all, it keeps calls from being lost.<br><br>So it should be implemented in Asterisk and it's up to Polycom, Snom and others to design phones that at least do not prevent people to use # sign based unified transfer method if they wish to.
<br><br><br>For the sake of behaviour consistency, maybe :<br>- this unified transfer method (let's say U for unified) should be introduced in features.conf independently of previous t or T methods and it's up developpers to reuse, factorize or rewrite existing transfer code and as long as those 3 methods as supported,
<br><br>- and previous t or T methods should be droped sometimes later on to simplify code support.<br><br>Cheers<br><br>