20 Jul
2009
20 Jul
'09
9:06 p.m.
On 20.07.2009 18:55 Uhr, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote:
On Jul 20, 2009 at 18:14, Klaus Darilion
<klaus.mailinglists(a)pernau.at> wrote:
yes, it became kind of recommended rule to return 0 on success and
negative in case of error. Positive return codes only when needed to
differentiate success cases. It was pretty messy in some cases with
return codes.
I checked the other calls of parse_sip_msg_uri() in k modules and they
check for <0 to detect error, so everything should be fine.
Daniel
what about sr modules (s and k)? Or does behave
sr-core different?
It does, parse_sip_msg_uri returns 1 on success and -1 on error
(in kamailio it was changed at some point and returns 0 on success and
-1 on error).
Andrei
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com/index.php/sip-router-bootcamp/
Daniel-Constantin Mierla schrieb:
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
Revision: 5904
http://openser.svn.sourceforge.net/openser/?rev=5904&view=rev
Author: miconda
Date: 2009-07-20 15:05:13 +0000 (Mon, 20 Jul 2009)
Log Message:
-----------
- proper return code check for r-uri parsing
- reported by Dubravko Caric
Modified Paths:
--------------
branches/1.5/modules/sanity/sanity.c
This was sent by the SourceForge.net collaborative development platform,
the world's largest Open Source development site.
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev