At 12:08 12/07/2007, JF wrote:
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.
Well sometimes a big-hammer approach features design simplicity which is good (simple to understand, audit, maintain, ....) and can be used to solve problems on serial basis. I personally find this quite a good solution.
One more Record-Route, bigger message... parsing the whole thing again.
parsing yes, you don't have to record-route each pass.
-jiri
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@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@lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
-- Jiri Kuthan http://iptel.org/~jiri/
-
Jiri Kuthan