[asterisk-users] Realtime status feature - user feedback needed

[Atis Lezdins]

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:07 AM, Tilghman Lesher
<tilghman at mail.jeffandtilghman.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 07 May 2008 16:11:05 Atis Lezdins wrote:
>  > However I encountered a resistance from Asterisk developers, as they
>  > don't wish to accept my patches - because they don't wish to support
>  > another interface. As I read in Bug Guidelines, if enough users
>  > request this, it should make into asterisk, so I'm asking You to
>  > express Your opinion on those features.
>
>  That's not quite correct, either.  First of all, the correct forum for this is
>  the -dev list, where we discuss development issues.  Second, we gave you
>  an alternative way to do this.  You could do this with AMI, with the addition
>  of a single query to access current state, then monitor status continuously
>  for updates.  And third, it doesn't make a difference how many users request
>  a particular interface -- the development team has to maintain it afterwards,
>  and if you're proposing a new interface, you need to convince the development
>  team that it's worth the extra hassle -- not the users.

True, but resistance I encountered gave me impression that there's no
way how to convince devs except lot of users asking for this, so i
want to see who would find this useful. I hope that this would
convince the development team.

>  So we're not opposed to the concept; we are opposed to the particular
>  interface that you chose to use.  Modify it, and it will make its way back
>  into Asterisk.  Stubbornly stamping your foot and insisting that you have
>  the right way, and the status quo will remain.

Unfortunately the concept I'm offering is that "There's no need for
continuous AMI connection". Current state can be retrieved already
(but that needs locking), and incremental updates are available too
(but that needs continuous AMI connection).

So all together - I'm saying there could be really simple interface
for all this - no troubles with locking of lists or keeping persistent
connections. Why would user application need to take care of all this,
if DB engine can do that.

>  > *** Supporting this feature
>  > If You find that those features would be good for merging into
>  > Asterisk, please write a comment in bugtracker:
>  > http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=12556
>
>  Please don't.  We've already discussed this to enough detail, and if you
>  choose to modify your code, it will show up in the next major release of
>  Asterisk.

I understand that code have to match certain standards, coding
guidelines and architecture. I'm willing to do any of this, but so far
i see all the discussions are about concept.

Regards,
Atis


-- 
Atis Lezdins,
VoIP Project Manager / Developer,
atis at iq-labs.net
Skype: atis.lezdins
Cell Phone: +371 28806004
Cell Phone: +1 800 7300689
Work phone: +1 800 7502835