chan_h323 vs asterisk-oh323 (Was Re: [Asterisk-Users] Cisco to asterisk termination with h323 and g729 finally works.)

[Jeremy McNamara]

Lubomir Christov wrote:

> BUT I have the say that I have the same opinion as martin 
> (martin at agilecall.com): "Although personally I would prefer oh323 for 
> its very well described config file for now winner is chan_h323"


Again, what is not clear about h323.conf?  It follows the other Asterisk 
channel driver config methods.


I am looking for specifics here, not just generalizations.  


> When we checked the source of chan_h323 (there was some problems few 
> days ago with g729 support - I know it's fixed yet) I had the feeling 
> that the channel was written in a hurry and there are too many things 
> not finished yet - just a example - there are some functions that 
> aren't doing nothing, just return ...


What functions are you talking about?   You do realize some functions 
are called "getter" functions, all they do is return information to the 
calling function.

And no chan_h323 was absolutely NOT written in a hurry. I spent the 
better part of a month in primary development of chan_h323.


> I'm sure that if Jeremy McNamara and Michael Manousos start working 
> together on the H323 support in asterisk - then the things will be 
> MUCH BETTER. And only then * will have a REALLY GOOD H323 support. 



As history shows I was totally blown off by Michael when I offered to 
help better his driver.  Then I was even told that I couldn't create 
anything better...hence the birth of chan_h323 and this whole mess.



Jeremy McNamara