[asterisk-users] question about queue

[BJ Weschke]

 With regard to (1), yes, very good point there and certainly reason 
enough to leave it alone. I had completely forgotten about a use case 
like that.

 With regard to (2), I'm pretty sure there's been work done in the 
recent past to make chan_local more state aware so that this might not 
be the case any more depending on what version you are using. I might be 
wrong there, but I know I've got a patch or two hanging around that did 
make this work.

Matt King wrote:
> Two use-cases where autofill=no is desirable:
>
> 1)  If it's important that you answer your callers in strict order 
> (i.e. in order to meet estimated wait time commitments etc).
>
> 2)  If your queue members/agents are local channels (as local channels 
> are always available, so call attempts will be made regardless of 
> who's talking).
>
> Kind regards,
>
>     Matt.
>
> BJ wrote
>
> >/   This was something I put in a long while back on 1.2 branch because we really needed it for 1.2 
> >   to "bug fix" the behavior, but also needed to prevent the change in behavior for those that 
> >   didn't want it to change.
> />/
> />/   That being the case and we're in the day and age of 1.6 branches now, it'd be interesting to 
> >   think of what people would think of deprecating this option completely now in /trunk in favor 
> >   of the "autofill=yes" behavior being the only behavior available. I cannot think of any use 
> >   cases where the autofill=no behavior might be desirable. That being said, I also might have 
> >   blinders on so would be curious to here what the rest of the community has to say about it.
> />/
> />/   BJ/
>


-- 
--
Bird's The Word Technologies, Inc.
http://www.btwtech.com/