[asterisk-dev] ARI Text messaging : inconsistencies in the API ?

[Jean Aunis]

Le 25/02/2020 à 19:09, Kevin Harwell a écrit :
> <snip>

> I could never get (2). When trying to send variables in the 
> TextMessageReceived event I would get a validation error unless they 
> are formatted like (3).
>
> (3) is the currently declared documented way to to it. As such any 
> other way breaks the API definition. However, when executing a 
> sendMessage (1) is the way it is currently working, so I'd be worried 
> about breaking current implementations if we altered it to (3) for 
> that case.
>
> So what to do?
>
> Option A: Leave sendMessage as is (1), update the documentation for 
> it, and fix TextMessageReceived to send variables as defined like (3). 
> Least breaking, but inconsistent way of sending and receiving variables.
>
> Option B: Update sendMessage to pass a TextMessageVariable like (3), 
> and fix TextMessageReceived to send variables like (3). The current 
> API definition doesn't change, but may break implementations.
>
> Option C: Leave sendMessage as is (1), update the TextMessageVariable 
> API definition to be similar to (1), e.g { "var name": "var value" }, 
> and not { "key": "var name", "value": "var value" }. This of course 
> breaks the current API definition, and would break implementations if 
> the validation error did not occur.
>
> While "A" is the safest (least breaking?), personally, I prefer and 
> choose "C". While it does break the API it seemingly has not worked 
> since the start so I don't think this will break any current 
> implementations. It will also make sending and receiving variables 
> more consistent.
>
> Thoughts?
I agree with option "C".
>
> -- 
> Kevin Harwell
> Software Developer
> Sangoma Technologies
> Check us out at: https://sangoma.com <https://sangoma.com/> & 
> https://asterisk.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/attachments/20200226/cd886757/attachment.html>