RE: [reSIProcate] DUM state machine
I kind of like this proposal too - it offers more flexibility. But
changing the callbacks now - would effect any current applications. It
wouldn't be too hard for me to fix up my app.
I would like to hear from the other core DUM designers on this one.
Scott
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francesco Fondelli [mailto:francesco.fondelli@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 6:35 AM
> To: Joe Boucher
> Cc: Scott Godin; Steve Robichaud;
resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [reSIProcate] DUM state machine
>
> On 11/16/05, Joe Boucher <jboucher@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [cut]
> > I'd say the proper mode of callback behavior would be:
> > - Calling onAccepted() when the 200 is sent
> > - Calling onConnected when the ACK is received
>
>
> I'd *really* like this behavior. Actually I have to use tricks using
> timers to
> proper mark a call as started (from a billing point of view) because
there
> is
> no indication of "onAckReceived". To have onConnected() called when
the
> ACK
> is received would be great.
>
> my 2 cent
> Ciao
> FF