On Thu June 7 2007 10:13:29 David Cook wrote: > You could reference it in both (depending on what you need to do) but > this is not required nor would it necessarily cause problems. > > When you specify a context that things "land" in you are specifying what > that calls "world" looks like. If it lands in default and default > includes mycontext then the call will see everything in both contexts. > > If the call lands in mycontext and _doesn't_ include default, then it > will only see things in mycontext. This is particularly important for > segregating dialing rules. For example, I want every employee to be > able to dial out to all North America so a dial rule that supports > 1NXXNXXXXXX will be in the context where all employee phones sit. > > The lobby phone shouldn't be able to dial anything that isn't local so > it won't be in that context. This context will only support 416XXXXXXX > (plus other local combinations). However, the employee phone context > will include this context so it has access to make local calls. > > "No", I wouldn't put the local calling in both contexts because then I > have duplicate code in two places which is guaranteed to come and bite > me you-know-where when it needs changing in the future. This way, one > function, one place. Either it works for all who have permission or it > doesn't. > > -- > David Cook > > Quoting Mark Borg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Hi, just a quick dialplan question. > > > > In a dialplan, after [default], if one has "include = mycontext", > > then in > > [mycontext], do you also need "include = default"? Is there > > possibility of a > > loop or anything? > > like, what would the priority be; not use the default in the later > > context? > > thanks.... > > Mark Borg > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OK that does indeed make sense. Thanks for clearing it up.
