IAX2 Java library (was Re: [Asterisk-Users] New IAX softwarephone (for WIndows platform))

[Richard Lyman]

am i the only one getting tired of hearing about this?   you are long 
time programmer, but not an expert of any of the listed languages below, 
yet you are 'professing' that they are languages that don't fit your 
'requirements'.  hmm

oh and the 'quality assurance levels' (those p100/75 systems) are right 
in line with todays machines and requirements.

there are alot of us that deal with lessor, but when you deal with a DSP 
device, you MAY want to use a machine with more horsepower.  (just a 
suggestion)


rnc Info Lists wrote:

>>On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 16:27, Alastair Maw wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>On 03/11/03 20:03, Steven Critchfield wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Sounds like you really need a C programmer and get into the guts
>>>>of asterisk. Can't get more flexible than having the source code
>>>>yourself to do anything you want. You could add your DSP routines into
>>>>the dsp.c file and call them when needed. You can also write a
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>asterisk
>>>      
>>>
>>>>application and have direct access to all the audio in every direction
>>>>just as you want it.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>But C isn't as maintainable as nice Java apps, and it's as simple as
>>>that. Basically, I'm after the most powerful interface possible to
>>>Asterisk, but trying to make it as friendly as possible to code things
>>>against. As far as our organization is concerned, that pretty much means
>>>Java objects.
>>>      
>>>
>>So you bought that line of Marketecture didn't you. I think there are
>>several large open source projects that prove that C is maintainable.
>>Maintainability is really a function of organization. If you can't be
>>organized, you will not produce very maintainable C code.
>>
>>I'll point out that I am not a C programmer, but making patches to
>>asterisk isn't that difficult.  I have also made patches to the kernel
>>without too much hair pulling.
>>
>>--
>>Steven Critchfield <critch at basesys.com>
>>
>>    
>>
>Steve,
>You are right... Lots of proof that C is maintainable.
>
>I don't profess to be a C, VB or JAVA expert but have programmed for
>longer than I care to admit.   What matters most is good solid and tight
>code regardless of the language.  It all comes down to the number of CPU
>cycles needed to perform a given function. When doing real time
>processing, a few cycles here and a few there can add up to make a real
>difference.  Object Oriented is nice for ease of writing/maintaining code
>but all of those objects have blocks of code behind them.  A slight
>inefficiency there can really impact performance.   Sure we have faster
>processors and lower cost memory every 6 months but thats no excuse for
>not writing the most efficient code possible.  Asterisk does rather well
>on my Pentium 100/32 MB RAM. Wish I still had the Pentium 75 to try it on.
> It must really boogy on the bigger boxes.
>
>I contend that the "most powerful interface" is one that meets the
>requirements of the customer (1st requirement), is written to be the most
>efficient (2nd requirement) and maintainable (3rd requirement) as
>possible.
>The language to be used is the selection of the person doing the
>development.  I'm not a fan of any Microsoft product but they do have a
>place in the world (for now).
>
>Kudos to Dan for his IAX phone. It works. He is responsive to bug fixes. 
>Hopefully he will continue the development.  Mark's offer of direct help I
>think speaks volumes about the importance of GPL IAX softphones  for
>Win32.
>
>
>Robert
>_______________________________________________
>Asterisk-Users mailing list
>Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
>http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>
>  
>