My vote for the renaming. It is very confusing to have mediaproxy-ng + rtpproxy | rtpproxy-ng modules, when you also have mediaproxy module and rtpproxy-proxy and mediaproxy-proxy, IYKWIM.
Regards,
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Juha Heinanen jh@tutpro.com wrote:
Richard Fuchs writes:
We're slowly getting ready for a new major release of mediaproxy-ng (3.x), which will include some exciting new features, most importantly much improved support for WebRTC. To support those features, rtpproxy-ng needs to support additional flags for the offer/answer functions.
This is great news. In my opinion it would be better to rename rtpproxy-ng module rather than leave its existing version hanging there, because I'm sure that current users of the module will migrate to the new one anyhow.
-- Juha
sr-dev mailing list sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev