| Hi Scott,
Thanks for the fast turn around. I tested your new and improved version and it works fine for me. And I like your encapsulation better. Cheers, On Feb 1, 2008, at 9:07 AM, Scott Godin wrote: Thanks Kobi! I think this patch is a good idea - I've had to do the same thing at the app level in many of the applications I've created.
I've taken a look at the patch and have made some modifications to my local copy - I'll give others a few days to digest and make comments, then I'll commit it. Here are the changes I've made so far:
1. Removed use of the resip Fifo to store the queued NITs and replaced this with an STL queue - the FIFO classes uses Mutex's that are just unneeded overhead.
2. In an attempt to make things a little cleaner. I renamed the checkNITQueue fn to nitComplete - this fn now sets the state to completed and checks the queue. This new fn is called in dispatchInfo, dispatchMessage on responses and on refer responses.
3. As a consequence of 2 - removed the checkNITQueue call from Dialog.cxx, when receiving a response to INFO or MESSAGE NITs.
I've attached a new version of the patch.
Thanks,
Scott
> -----Original Message-----
> From: resiprocate-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:resiprocate-
> devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kobi Eshun
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 7:56 PM
> To: resiprocate-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [reSIProcate] Patch: Adds support to queue NITs
>
> Hi,
>
> Please consider the attached patch against HEAD. It implements queueing
> for any outgoing REFER, INFO, or MESSAGE requests associated with an
> InviteSession. If a non-INVITE transaction is already in progress when
> refer(), info() or message() is invoked, the resulting SIP request is
> pushed into a FIFO. Queued requestes are shipped out one at a time
> without overlap as final responses are processed.
>
> For INFO and MESSAGE, the new behavior is semantically equivalent to
> before (queueing notwithstanding).
>
> For REFER, the previous code locked out a new request until the
> onReferAccepted() callback fired on the first NOTIFY. The patch changes
> the end of that lockout to coincide with the final response for the
> REFER itself. The new lockout period should be shorter, and proved
> easier to code. Does anyone see a problem with this?
>
> The new queue should also work with the DUM command API, but I did not
> test it.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> kobi
> |