4 Feb
2009
4 Feb
'09
11:30 p.m.
On 02/04/2009 11:18 PM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
On 02/04/2009 10:58 PM, Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul
wrote:
and btw, as the case values are constant, we probably optimize by
creating a hash value at start up from it, so there can be some jumpers
and linkers of the the actions crossing cases without breaks.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
http://www.asipto.com
On Feb 04, 2009 at 22:29, Daniel-Constantin
Mierla <miconda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
There are couple of advantages:
1) config clarity - instead of a long
if (a==... || a==...)
you have
switch(a) {
case ...:
case ...:
}
2) it can shorten the script and save some ifs:
switch(a) {
case v1:
something;
case v2:
something else;
break;
}
This is equivalent of:
if(a==v1) {
something;
}
if(a==v1 || a==v2){
something;
something else;
}
or
if(a==v1) {
something;
something else;
}
if(a==v2){
something else;
}
3) although not implemented yet in kamailio/openser (but planned),
inside 'break' can make code cleaner
switch(a) {
case v1:
...
if(...) {
break;
}
...
break;
}
4) traditionally, as I could learn, pstn switching/old telco school guys
feel more confortable with line oriented routing rules, where they had
something like:
extension match "1234": call emergency;
It could be a sswitch (although I would prefer single name to avoid
confusions) if breaks logic for integer optimizations.
Hi Andrei,
does the switch support only integers?
Apart of return code from functions, most of the switches I have seen
are for strings (e.g., matching dialed number/address, user IDs, etc...).
Yes, it's only for integers.
For strings, ifs should be used, since the switch wouldn't bring any
advantage.