On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Brad Watkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm just throwing this out there, but what if the "pattern" (we'll use > that name for now, although I'm not sure I like it as the final name) could > itself define new types. Then, if you provided a standard config (i.e., > the sample config) which defined some set of standard types (phone, > itsp/trunk, whatever) you could have configurations with semantics similar > to what Josh originally proposed. It also means a user of Asterisk can > look at the config for the pattern and both see what it's doing under the > hood (vs. being in the code somewhere) and also modify it for their own > needs if they'd like to. > > Anyway, just a thought. > > Makes sense to me. > >
-- _____________________________________________________________________ -- 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
