[asterisk-users] res_fax

[Bryant Zimmerman]

On 01/20/2011 11:47 AM, Steve Underwood
On 01/20/2011 11:11 PM, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> On 01/19/2011 02:30 PM, Bryant Zimmerman wrote:
>> On 01/19/2011 02:05 PM, Bryant Zimmerman wrote:
>>> I am working on some fax tools for some of my users. I am reading the
>>> https://wiki.asterisk.org docs for faxing.
>>> Is see Application_SendFax and Application_SendeFax has one been
>> discondinued?
>>> Any feed back on using the res_fax module would be apperciated. Any
>> examples or
>>> other.
>>
>> *From*: "Jason Parker" <jparker at digium.com>
>> *Sent*: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 3:19 PM
>> There was a typo in the res_fax documentation. Application_SendeFax
>> should be
>> the correct documentation. I don't know where Application_SendFax is 
>> coming
>> from - it's probably old. When the next import happens, 
>> Application_SendFax
>> should be replaced by the correct version (then I'll try to remember to
>> remove
>> the bogus SendeFax copy).
>>
>> Jason thanks for the clarification on this.
>>
>> If I start my development with the res_fax_spandsp.so module. Should 
all
>> of my code be compatible with the res_fax_digium.so module? I want to 
be
>> able to get things running and tested and move to the digium supported
>> option in the future.
>
> The choice of technology module is mostly irrelevant; that was the 
> whole point of splitting res_fax out from them. If you use the 
> applications and other features of res_fax, it won't matter which 
> underlying technology module is loaded.
>
Well, people do get problems with the Digum FAX software, which go away 
when they switch to spandsp. Its best to test with the code you intend 
to deploy.

Steve

Steve is there any real compelling reason to res_fax_digium.so over the 
res_fax_spandsp.so?
I was thinking Digium module was likely to be better is this wrong based on 
what people are seeing?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20110120/fc2b5bf9/attachment.htm>