12 Jul
2007
12 Jul
'07
1:34 p.m.
Hi Andreas,
as time the functions you are using are safe to be used in failure
route, there is no problem doing that...:)
JF, regarding the "enum" functions in failure_route: the reason for not
being officially allowed in failure route is because of how the newly
added branches are processed, so you might have problems when the enum
query returns more than one result. Otherwise is perfectly safe.
Just to give you an example of the branch issue: the enum_query()
function stores the first URI (from result) in RURI and the rest of them
as branches; so, if the query returns A, B and C (ordered by q), you
will have A in RURI and B + C in branches. As failure route does not use
RURI anymore, you need to do a append_branch() to move A also as a
branch -> you have B,C,A order now which conflicts with q.
if you do not have multiple results, you can safely do from
failure_route the enum_query() and append_branch().
regards,
bogdan
Andreas Granig wrote:
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