Re: [OpenSER-Users] Re: [Serusers] enum_query from failure route

Hi, Well, I do this for years now (jumping right back into routes for processing call-forward-busy etc.) without any problems. Should I care? :o) Andreas JF wrote: >Thanks. >The issue here is what kind of "Dragons" will be awaked in TM if I do that... >JF >On 7/12/07, Atle Samuelsen <clona(a)cyberhouse.no> wrote: >> >>Hi Jf, >> >>There is one hack you can do.. wich would allow you do to a enumquery.. >>but, it?s not nice.. >> >>in failure_route, call a regular route. and in the reuglar route do a >>enum_query. It works I think (not tried it) but it?s not nice. >> >>this way, you will "skip" the extra record_rotue etc.. >>- Atle >> >>* JF <jfkavaka(a)gmail.com> [070712 12:09]: >>> So, if I want to perform some less simple (e.g. enum_query) processing >>> on failed requests, I should loop the request through SER again and do >>> it in request route? >>> >>> Not a very nice way to solve it. One more Record-Route, bigger >>> message... parsing the whole thing again. >>> >>> Andrei, what exactly is the problem regarding long processing in >>> failure route, and what could be done to fix it? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> JF >>> >>> On 7/11/07, Jiri Kuthan <jiri(a)iptel.org> wrote: >>> > At 21:22 11/07/2007, Martin Hoffmann wrote: >>> > >Jiri Kuthan wrote: >>> > >> At 16:41 11/07/2007, JF wrote: >>> > >> > >>> > >> >Is there any particular reason why enum_query cannot be called from >>> > >> >FAILURE_ROUTE? >>> > >> >>> > >> Not sure. I think it is possible to turn it on but possibly ENUM's processing >>> > >> latency may conflict with the failure_route located in the middle of >>> > >> transaction >>> > >> processing and lead to some blocknig conditions, current TM >>> > >> maintainer, Andrei, will >>> > >> certainly know better. >>> > > >>> > >In short: There may be dragons there. >>> > > >>> > >Anyways, I am not sure what you want to do, but you can usually skip the >>> > >problem by fixing the Request-URI and sprialing the call to yourself. >>> > > >>> > >For instance, if call forwarding is what you're after, instead of >>> > >re-setting the target and just running processing again, you can just >>> > >stuff the URI you want to forward to in the Request-URI and call >>> > >t_relay() (don't forget the append_branch() if in a failure_route). >>> > > >>> > >As a rule, keep failure and onreply routes simple. Actually, as a rule, >>> > >keep your config simple (Though simple does not necessarly mean short). >>> > >>> > Indeed: KISS applies to ser.cfg very well. >>> > >>> > -jiri >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/ >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Serusers mailing list >>> > Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >>> > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Serusers mailing list >>> Serusers(a)lists.iptel.org >>> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers >> >_______________________________________________ >Users mailing list >Users(a)openser.org >http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users