Maybe others can offer their advice as to which is the preferred way to go?On 28 October 2014 14:40, Andrey Rybkin <rybkin.a@bks.tv> wrote:_______________________________________________Thought about to add this functionality to the module. If this approach seems to be more correct, then I can move my code in a module, but, in my opinion, it is not very correct.________________________________2014-10-28 16:46 GMT+03:00 Alex Hermann <alex@speakup.nl>:On Tuesday 28 October 2014, Андрей Рыбкин wrote:
> Module DMQ_SYNC:
> The module add replication between multiple servers via DMQ module.
> Currently only usrloc replications.
I think some decision should be made on where syncing code should be placed.
The htable module has dmq sync integrated, now you introduce a module
dedicated to syncing via dmq.
I have no strong preference, but am against different implementations
depending on the module. So i would prefer either dmq-sync integrated into
each module, or one dmq_sync module. Not a combination of both.
> TODO:
> 1. dialog replications.
> 2. bugfixes.
>
> Patch fo DMQ:
> 1. add find_dmq_node_uri function to API
> dmq_node_t* find_dmq_node_uri(str* uri)
> 2. add init_callback to dmq_peer
> int init_callback()
Except for the broken indenting, this seems equal to my code. If it is mine,
and the code is useful, please cherry-pick the relevant commits so authorship
is retained.
--
Greetings,
Alex Hermann
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
www.sipcentric.com
Follow us on twitter @sipcentric
Sipcentric Ltd. Company registered in England & Wales no. 7365592. Registered office: Faraday Wharf, Innovation Birmingham Campus, Holt Street, Birmingham Science Park, Birmingham B7 4BB.
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev