[reSIProcate] Sharing DUM State

[Nilay Tripathi]

Hi,

If I am getting it correct then I feel atomicity is going to be more
relevant in a threaded environment, and for that purpose, yes it should be
an atomic operation.

Let me know your thoughts on this !!

Regards,
Nilay

On 3/1/07, qiu michael <antelope.qiu at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I need it too. But I think it's a little bit problem. We have to make this
> handle be atomic.
> Do you think so?
>
> 2007/3/1, Nilay Tripathi < nilay.linux at gmail.com>:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > DUM maintains state for each dialog/session. It is defined in class
> > InviteSession.
> >
> > What I am curious about is that, is there going to be any problem if we
> > share this
> > state through the handles? Which precisely means writing a public 'get'
> > function and
> > pulling out the 'state' enum into 'public'.
> >
> > I feel this would be a good to have thing, for lets say that I want to
> > integrate this to a
> > minimalistic call-fsm. This would save from changing into the provided
> > call-fsm and
> > also need not maintain states separately. Of-course, state transition
> > would not be
> > allowed but re-usability of DUM states can make life simpler :)
> >
> > Thanks in advance!!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Nilay
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > resiprocate-devel mailing list
> > resiprocate-devel at list.resiprocate.org
> > https://list.resiprocate.org/mailman/listinfo/resiprocate-devel
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.resiprocate.org/pipermail/resiprocate-devel/attachments/20070301/be629729/attachment-0001.htm>