20 Nov
2010
20 Nov
'10
11:34 a.m.
On 11/20/10 10:27 AM, Jon Bonilla (Manwe) wrote:
El Sat, 20 Nov 2010 10:15:27 +0100
Daniel-Constantin Mierla<miconda(a)gmail.com> escribió:
On a second thought, just module name should be enough, because will
still be the current version for "experts", at least several releases
from now on.
Introducing short alias will just complicate things, adding confusion.
In the future we can review the concept and added if many people want it.
Also, we encourage people to find nice short names from beginning of
development :-) when only the module name can be used.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla
Kamailio (OpenSER) Advanced Trainings
Nov 22-25, 2010, Berlin, Germany
Jan 24-26, 2011, Irvine, CA, USA
http://www.asipto.com
This should not be that complex, there is no
function name that has '.'
in order to have current conflicts to solve. My concern is related to
modules with very long names, but seems that most of such cases do not
export lot of functions (e.g., presence_*).
Alternative is to introduce a short id for modules, eg,:
ps => presence
rp => rtpproxy
Both of them could be used. One short version for expert people
and the long,
full format for newbies or in didactical examples.