That makes a lot of sense, actually.
So another question: should there be a single syncing module (i.e.
dmq_sync) for all modules which are sensitive and/or export all
functionality through their API, or one per module (e.g. dmq_usrloc...)?
I was actually thinking of it, but couldn't get to a clear conclusion
before ...
Overall, I am not sure if making white or black is the best. I see it more
of a per case situation.
For example, usrloc is a standalone component by itself, with registrar
being the interface to kamailio.cfg, then pua_usrloc or pua_reginfo being
the presence events publishing. Being such a component used in various
directions, I think it should stay rather independent, not getting extra
stuff inside, but other components can be built on top of its exported API.
On the other hand, just adding a new module for each other module that
wants to notify via dmq could be an unnecessary overhead.
So, at this moment, I would say, if the module has everything that is
needed exported via API, the dmq can be done as separate module. Also, if
the module is very sensitive, I would suggest the same approach (e.g., I
wouldn't like to see it inside tm module, if someone thinks of dmq-ing
transactions, but rather a separate module or part of tmx).
Cheers,
Daniel
On 29/10/14 19:38, Charles Chance wrote:
Maybe others can offer their advice as to which is the preferred way to go?
On 28 October 2014 14:40, Andrey Rybkin <rybkin.a(a)bks.tv> wrote:
Thought about to add this functionality to the
module. If this approach
seems to be more correct, then I can move my code in a module, but, in my
opinion, it is not very correct.
________________________________
Andrey Rybkin
JID: rybkin.a(a)bks.tv
E-Mail: rybkin.a(a)bks.tv
2014-10-28 16:46 GMT+03:00 Alex Hermann <alex(a)speakup.nl>nl>:
On Tuesday 28 October 2014, Андрей Рыбкин wrote:
Module DMQ_SYNC:
The module add replication between multiple servers via DMQ module.
Currently only usrloc replications.
I think some decision should be made on where syncing code should be
placed.
The htable module has dmq sync integrated, now you introduce a module
dedicated to syncing via dmq.
I have no strong preference, but am against different implementations
depending on the module. So i would prefer either dmq-sync integrated into
each module, or one dmq_sync module. Not a combination of both.
TODO:
1. dialog replications.
2. bugfixes.
Patch fo DMQ:
1. add find_dmq_node_uri function to API
dmq_node_t* find_dmq_node_uri(str* uri)
2. add init_callback to dmq_peer
int init_callback()
Except for the broken indenting, this seems equal to my code. If it is
mine,
and the code is useful, please cherry-pick the relevant commits so
authorship
is retained.
--
Greetings,
Alex Hermann
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
www.sipcentric.com
Follow us on twitter @sipcentric <http://twitter.com/sipcentric>
Sipcentric Ltd. Company registered in England & Wales no. 7365592. Registered
office: Faraday Wharf, Innovation Birmingham Campus, Holt Street,
Birmingham Science Park, Birmingham B7 4BB.
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing
listsr-dev@lists.sip-router.orghttp://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
--
Daniel-Constantin
Mierlahttp://twitter.com/#!/miconda -
http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
_______________________________________________
sr-dev mailing list
sr-dev(a)lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
--
www.sipcentric.com
Follow us on twitter @sipcentric <http://twitter.com/sipcentric>
Sipcentric Ltd. Company registered in England & Wales no. 7365592. Registered
office: Faraday Wharf, Innovation Birmingham Campus, Holt Street,
Birmingham Science Park, Birmingham B7 4BB.