21 Jan
2010
21 Jan
'10
7:48 p.m.
On 1/21/10 4:17 PM, Aymeric Moizard wrote:
Then my first comment would be: why have the "pa" been removed
I guess it was no longer update to work with latest core and db apis.
Last general question: What about mixing kamailio
& ser? I've seen
for example modules with same namings: "auth" and "auth_db" in both
modules_s & modules_k: does this means we can use the same core but
have to choose between using modules_s or modules_k?
You can mix, but not arbitrarily. The biggest difference between ser
and kamailio is the database structure. ser uses a new database
schema with numeric user-ids which map to SIP AoR. kamailio still
uses the old (ser 0.9.x) database schema where every user has a fixed
AoR.
Therefore you can not mix modules which require different database
layouts.
Thus, in your scenario you have to mix database layouts:
provisioning/location from ser and presence from kamailio. That might
work. But probably much easier would be to use kamailio modules only
(unless you need numeric user ids). if it's
not possible to use the presence module from kamailio...
you can use them, they are pretty much independent of the subscriber
table and profile, you just create the afferent tables from kamailio.
In my mind, presence & presence_xml are using different independant
database table and doesn't conflict with ser database?
Right.
Most probably, there could be conflict with modules that depends
on usrloc for example? (like pua_usrloc) Looking at developper APIs,
for both usrloc kam/ser modules they are very close.
I haven't checked ser usrloc, we did some changes in K, some of them for
presence purpose and for using the pua_usrloc you have to use K usrloc
and registrar modules and from here nathelper module.
I don't fully understand yet what "numeric user ids" are, but I would
really like to use the ser database layout for
user/location/credentials which seems really flexible compared to
kamailio.
Doing auth with ser modules and using presence/usrloc from K should be
just fine.
So where sip-router is going? Do you target to have only the same
core for both kamailio & ser, but still be different projects?
Goal is to remove duplication as much as possible. However, the db
related things are the most sensitive, since people have management
application relying on certain structure.
Is having a common database layout an objective of the sip-router
project?
Yes, but I would say it will be the last to happen -- there will be
quite some debates around.
If I intent to implement to additionnal event package, do you advise
me to stick with kamailio subscriber layout?
presence and subscriber profiles are quite independent.
I finally understood why my "make deb" was compiling a ser version:
I just forgot to checkout the kamailio branch... That was also a
source of confusion for understanding why normal step for the
kamailio branch was to setup a ser database layout... Because
of that error, I though first the same layout was already used...
A bit inconvenient with git, indeed, but I could not find how to fetch
easily only the branch to give such guidelines.
Cheers,
Daniel
Tks,
Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP
amsip - http://www.antisip.com
osip2 - http://www.osip.org
eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
* http://www.asipto.com/
regards
klaus
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
Tks much for your help & advise,
Aymeric MOIZARD / ANTISIP
amsip - http://www.antisip.com
osip2 - http://www.osip.org
eXosip2 - http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/exosip/
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev