[Asterisk-Users] What about a higher level configuration language

[Jay Milk]

XML isn't the magic answer to all questions.  The configuration
"database" for Asterisk is relatively flat while XML supports
hierarchical data much better.  Asterisk's current config file are
better suited to the task than XML inherently could be.

If the original poster is still interested writing a preprocessor for
asterisks config, I'd like to see a syntax for extensions.conf that's
easier to maintain, such as:

[context]
exten => _1xxx
:DigitTimeOut(10)
:ResponseTimeOut(20)
BackHere:Answer
:Read(callto,pls-entr-num-uwish2-call,10)
:Read(callfrom,enter-phone-number10,10)
:SetCIDNum(${callfrom})
:Dial(IAX2/${IAXFREE}/1${callto},40):Failed
:Hangup
Failed:Play(try-again)
Goto(BackHere)

Eliminating the need to specify (and keep track of) priorities would
make changes to extensions.conf much easier to implement.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Benjamin on Asterisk Mailing Lists 
> [mailto:benjk.on.asterisk.ml at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 10:19 AM
> To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
> Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] What about a higher level 
> configuration language
> 
> 
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 15:03:58 +0200, Rodolfo Grave 
> <rodolfograve at yahoo.es> wrote:
> > but I'm sure with the help of the community and if there
> > are enough people needing/wating this, we can make a good language 
> > specification. Personally I can and will make the compiler from the 
> > higher level to current language, and even maybe 
> vice-versa. Just need 
> > the specification of both languages and support of the 
> comunity (if no 
> > one needs this it is not worthy).
> 
> If you want to build a strong house, you need a solid 
> fundament. I don't think the current configuration language 
> is a good fundament to build upon.
> 
> We would be well advised to first build that solid fundament 
> before thinking about higher level languages.
> 
> So how about a discussion to give Asterisk an XML based 
> configuration as a base.
> 
> For backwards compatibility, the existing config language 
> could then sit on top of the XML as one alternative amongst others.
> 
> rgds
> benjk