Tilghman Lesher wrote: > On Tuesday 27 November 2007 11:26:34 Eliel Sardanons wrote: > >> On 11/27/07, Russell Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Eliel Sardanons wrote: >>> >>>> We could start a janitor for creating a 'foo reload' and we could make >>>> de 'module reload *.so' do a module unload; module load >>>> >>> I would rather not change the behavior of "module reload". I think that >>> would be much worse than just removing it, as it changes behavior that >>> has existed for years. Running "module unload / module load" isn't that >>> bad. >>> >> So: >> - Start a janitor to implement 'foo reload' for every module that does >> something in the reload() handler function. >> - Deprecate CLI command 'module reload <modulename>' >> - Remove the 'reload()' handler function on every module. >> > > I wouldn't do this last one. That is the handler that is called when we do > a generic 'reload', for every single module. > > I agree with Tilghman.
-- Bird's The Word Technologies, Inc. http://www.btwtech.com/ _______________________________________________ --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
