24 Aug
2009
24 Aug
'09
2:48 p.m.
Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
That's good to know. Half the problem is that people who don't know
this scour all the documentation in an attempt to gain a holistic grasp
of what the changes are, whether or not there are any.
It's not my perception.
As I said, not my perception, so I personally cannot answer any of that.
I personally see a lot of new and interesting features and a fair bit
of stability.
--
Alex Balashov - Principal
Evariste Systems
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Hello,
On 24.08.2009 14:14 Uhr, Alex Balashov wrote:
Yes, I will review it and make a list.
The sip-router.org documentation is already
excessively complicated
and difficult to understand for anyone who does not routinely work
with both the K and S code. At this point, the documentation, while
voluminous, is overwhelming and, in places, woefully incomplete,
can you point such places? while in other
places, I would say "exhaustively" (perhaps
"exhaustingly") complete.
From K point of view, same documentation is available, the core, pv and
transformations cookbooks are updated completely -- actually only core
cookbook needed a major update since we had a lot of new parameters for
dns, transport layers, etc... Your questions can be rephrased as "what is the
difference between linux
and debian?". Debian is just a particular packaging of available linux
applications. In similar way, Kamailio, is SR core plus selection of SR
modules. Like in linux, where are application that overlap in
functionality, and one is preferred over the others (e.g., MTA), in SR
there are modules that overlap (e.g., auth) using a different
concept/database structure and one is preferred to the other.
I already understood this. The question is - why would one be preferred
to the other, from a practical perspective? What are the substantive
differences?
I also
encounter the widespread perception from my customers that a
lot of time has been spent on "fun"
I would have liked some fun, but there wasn't, not for me, very
interesting perception I would say, maybe you can point me such cases.
It was quite heavy work. The goal of trying to preserve max
compatibility while not messing up a lot of code in core was achieved -
the core impact was kept minimal, therefore inheriting stability from
ser 2.0. Several modules took the load of extra features. and
"interesting" integration work, not on developing features or
fixing bugs. I hope they're wrong.
What are the bugs staying unfixed? What
are missing features not
adopted? There was quite a lot of new development, including transport
layer such as sctp, asyncronous message processing (t_suspend/t_continue
which is functional), continuing with new modules (link provided in
previous email).