Sounds like good reasoning to me. On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, 11:23 Joshua C. Colp <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, at 12:18 PM, Seán C. McCord wrote: > > I don't think checking channel events is too onerous, considering that > > IP-based connections would be able to fail, too. > > > > As far as the ARI API: I don't really care that much, but is there a > > reason to not simply use the existing channel tech/target syntax (e.g. > > ExternalMedia/media.host.example.com:6645)? > > Cramming options in the future in a dial string makes things rather > unfriendly (see chan_sip) - this is why I pushed for an explicit API to > create such a thing. It's also more approachable, and easier to document. > > -- > Joshua C. Colp > Digium - A Sangoma Company | Senior Software Developer > 445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - US > Check us out at: www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org > > -- > _____________________________________________________________________ > -- 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
-- _____________________________________________________________________ -- 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
