[reSIProcate] Patch: Adds support to queue NITs

[Byron Campen]

	I would argue that, if we don't understand what copying an  
InviteSession should mean, we should just remove the code. Just my 2  
cents.

Best regards,
Byron Campen

> Not sure where it would be copied, but we would get a crash in the  
> InviteSession destructor when resiprocate would shutdown if it  
> wasn’t an auto_pointer
>
>
>
> From: resiprocate-devel-bounces at resiprocate.org [mailto:resiprocate- 
> devel-bounces at resiprocate.org] On Behalf Of Scott Godin
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 10:06 PM
> To: Kobi Eshun
> Cc: resiprocate-devel at resiprocate.org
> Subject: Re: [reSIProcate] Patch: Adds support to queue NITs
>
>
>
> When is an InviteSession ever copied?  I don’t think this is a  
> problem.
>
>
>
> From: Kobi Eshun [mailto:kobi at sightspeed.com]
> Sent: February-01-08 6:50 PM
> To: Scott Godin
> Cc: resiprocate-devel at resiprocate.org
> Subject: Re: [reSIProcate] Patch: Adds support to queue NITs
>
>
>
> Hi Scott,
>
>
>
> I found an issue with the implementation: the elements of mNITQueue  
> are not correctly duplicated on an InviteSession copy as currently  
> implemented (my bad, not yours).
>
>
>
> I changed it to be a queue of shared rather than raw pointers.
>
>
>
> --
>
> kobi
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 at resiprocate.org [mailto:resiprocate-
> > devel-bounces at resiprocate.org] On Behalf Of Kobi Eshun
> > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 7:56 PM
> > To: resiprocate-devel at resiprocate.org
> > 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
> >
>
> <resiprocate_queued_NITs-scott.diff>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> resiprocate-devel mailing list
> resiprocate-devel at 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/20080202/97b9240f/attachment.htm>