Hi,
Is there any difference in the brake and drop command behavior in ser.cfg??
Cheers Tomasz
On 8/6/07, tzieleniewski tzieleniewski@o2.pl wrote:
Hi,
Is there any difference in the brake and drop command behavior in ser.cfg ??
break stops execution of current route, resuming the next outer one (if any), from where the current was invoked. drop stops execution of script.
WL.
Cheers
Tomasz _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
Weiter Leiter wrote:
On 8/6/07, *tzieleniewski* <tzieleniewski@o2.pl mailto:tzieleniewski@o2.pl> wrote:
Hi, Is there any difference in the brake and drop command behavior in ser.cfg??break stops execution of current route, resuming the next outer one (if any), from where the current was invoked. drop stops execution of script.
WL.
I'm assuming these are SER 2.0 commands?
Is it possible to have come up with even more convoluted and non-intuitive names? Perhaps "frog" and "bunny" or "seratonin" and "cuisinart" ? I mean, why stop with 'brake,' which is so close to being 'break' (the command one usually uses in a programming setting to escape a loop) and yet... isn't. Or drop... which really doesn't imply to me 'stop execution' as much as it implies ignore an incoming connection... or perhaps delete a table.
N.
break appeared early in SER; so, it remained. drop is a tad newer (?) and probably appeared in the tradition of packet filtering naming. there is also the more intuitive "exit" alternative to it. there is also a "return" alternative for break.
WL.
On 8/6/07, SIP sip@arcdiv.com wrote:
Weiter Leiter wrote:
On 8/6/07, *tzieleniewski* <tzieleniewski@o2.pl mailto:tzieleniewski@o2.pl> wrote:
Hi, Is there any difference in the brake and drop command behavior in ser.cfg??break stops execution of current route, resuming the next outer one (if any), from where the current was invoked. drop stops execution of script.
WL.
I'm assuming these are SER 2.0 commands?
Is it possible to have come up with even more convoluted and non-intuitive names? Perhaps "frog" and "bunny" or "seratonin" and "cuisinart" ? I mean, why stop with 'brake,' which is so close to being 'break' (the command one usually uses in a programming setting to escape a loop) and yet... isn't. Or drop... which really doesn't imply to me 'stop execution' as much as it implies ignore an incoming connection... or perhaps delete a table.
N.
'break' I could understand.
But not so much 'brake'
Drop is... well... not so intuitive. Exit makes perfect sense. :)
Call me inflexible. ;)
N.
Weiter Leiter wrote:
break appeared early in SER; so, it remained. drop is a tad newer (?) and probably appeared in the tradition of packet filtering naming. there is also the more intuitive "exit" alternative to it. there is also a "return" alternative for break.
WL.
On 8/6/07, *SIP* <sip@arcdiv.com mailto:sip@arcdiv.com> wrote:
Weiter Leiter wrote: > > > On 8/6/07, *tzieleniewski* <tzieleniewski@o2.pl <mailto:tzieleniewski@o2.pl> > <mailto:tzieleniewski@o2.pl <mailto:tzieleniewski@o2.pl>>> wrote: > > Hi, > > Is there any difference in the brake and drop command behavior in > ser.cfg?? > > > break stops execution of current route, resuming the next outer one > (if any), from where the current was invoked. > drop stops execution of script. > > WL. I'm assuming these are SER 2.0 commands? Is it possible to have come up with even more convoluted and non-intuitive names? Perhaps "frog" and "bunny" or "seratonin" and "cuisinart" ? I mean, why stop with 'brake,' which is so close to being 'break' (the command one usually uses in a programming setting to escape a loop) and yet... isn't. Or drop... which really doesn't imply to me 'stop execution' as much as it implies ignore an incoming connection... or perhaps delete a table. N.-- "C is a language that combines all the elegance and power of assembly language with all the readability and maintainability of assembly language."
This is copied out of NEWS file in CVS:
- drop /exit [n] now will end the script execution exit n will exit with code n (usefull in onreply/onsend routes where if script code !=0 a reply is generated/the message is sent or to force script errors)
Lada
SIP wrote:
'break' I could understand.
But not so much 'brake'
Drop is... well... not so intuitive. Exit makes perfect sense. :)
Call me inflexible. ;)
N.
Weiter Leiter wrote:
break appeared early in SER; so, it remained. drop is a tad newer (?) and probably appeared in the tradition of packet filtering naming. there is also the more intuitive "exit" alternative to it. there is also a "return" alternative for break.
WL.
On 8/6/07, *SIP* <sip@arcdiv.com mailto:sip@arcdiv.com> wrote:
Weiter Leiter wrote: > > > On 8/6/07, *tzieleniewski* <tzieleniewski@o2.pl <mailto:tzieleniewski@o2.pl> > <mailto:tzieleniewski@o2.pl <mailto:tzieleniewski@o2.pl>>> wrote: > > Hi, > > Is there any difference in the brake and drop command behavior in > ser.cfg?? > > > break stops execution of current route, resuming the next outer one > (if any), from where the current was invoked. > drop stops execution of script. > > WL. I'm assuming these are SER 2.0 commands? Is it possible to have come up with even more convoluted and non-intuitive names? Perhaps "frog" and "bunny" or "seratonin" and "cuisinart" ? I mean, why stop with 'brake,' which is so close to being 'break' (the command one usually uses in a programming setting to escape a loop) and yet... isn't. Or drop... which really doesn't imply to me 'stop execution' as much as it implies ignore an incoming connection... or perhaps delete a table. N.-- "C is a language that combines all the elegance and power of assembly language with all the readability and maintainability of assembly language."
Serusers mailing list Serusers@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-
Ladislav Andel -
SIP -
tzieleniewski -
Weiter Leiter