Le 25/02/2020 à 19:09, Kevin Harwell a écrit :
<snip>
I could never get (2). When trying to send variables in the
TextMessageReceived event I would get a validation error unless they
are formatted like (3).
(3) is the currently declared documented way to to it. As such any
other way breaks the API definition. However, when executing a
sendMessage (1) is the way it is currently working, so I'd be worried
about breaking current implementations if we altered it to (3) for
that case.
So what to do?
Option A: Leave sendMessage as is (1), update the documentation for
it, and fix TextMessageReceived to send variables as defined like (3).
Least breaking, but inconsistent way of sending and receiving variables.
Option B: Update sendMessage to pass a TextMessageVariable like (3),
and fix TextMessageReceived to send variables like (3). The current
API definition doesn't change, but may break implementations.
Option C: Leave sendMessage as is (1), update the TextMessageVariable
API definition to be similar to (1), e.g { "var name": "var value" },
and not { "key": "var name", "value": "var value" }. This of course
breaks the current API definition, and would break implementations if
the validation error did not occur.
While "A" is the safest (least breaking?), personally, I prefer and
choose "C". While it does break the API it seemingly has not worked
since the start so I don't think this will break any current
implementations. It will also make sending and receiving variables
more consistent.
Thoughts?
I agree with option "C".
--
Kevin Harwell
Software Developer
Sangoma Technologies
Check us out at: https://sangoma.com <https://sangoma.com/> &
https://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
