On Friday 24 August 2007 01:20:02 Igor A. Goncharovsky wrote: > Tilghman Lesher wrote: > >> OK, SIPdevice looks like good name. As I know there are no same > >> techology for other protocols and therefore no need to use peer name > >> with technology. > >> Also question: is it need to make response with confirmation of notify > >> sent? I think yes, when we get 200 OK from device. > >> > > >From a top-down perspective, we have really been trying to get away from > > > > customized parameter names in the manager. Custom names are fine > > for the Event name, but we'd like to see you use common parameter names. > > So I'd prefer something along the following lines: > > > > Action: SIPnotify > > Notify: <notify-type> > > PeerCount: 3 > > Peer: <sip-peer-name-1> > > Peer: <sip-peer-name-2> > > Peer: <sip-peer-name-3> > > > > with, of course, PeerCount defaulting to 1, if not specified. That's > > backwards compatible to the current Notify event. There is no > > prohibition in the normal manager against having multiple parameters with > > the same name. > > Hmm, I didn'n find anything about Notify event. What is it for?
I don't know - this is the event type that you used in your initial post. > Is it really need to use here PeerCount? Using astman_get_variables we > can get all values of Peer without this information. Yes, you can, but you specified Peers in your initial post, along with an integer, and I would prefer that you more clearly delineate than a Peer parameter and a Peers parameter. -- Tilghman _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-dev mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
