On Jun 3, 2007, at 4:51 PM, Mindaugas Kezys wrote: >> Second, ARA is considered a bad hack in need of a replacement, too. >> Most folks don't want to put resources into code which is on death- >> row. > > Please explain since when ARA is "considered a bad hack"
In a nutshell, asterisk wasn't designed for it and bolting things on that go beyond design limits is always paid for with problems. However, you can always ask the author himself. He says its a bad hack to be used with caution and he can explain the pitfalls better than anyone else. He hangs out on IRC as anthm. > and what is seen as a replacement for this feature? There isn't any replacement for ARA in sight at this time since there are many more basic things which need to be fixed, changed or replaced first. Thus, the general advice is to use ARA with restraint and caution if you must. But, if you do use ARA, be prepared for your stuff to break as CW is evolving. rgds benjk _______________________________________________ Callweaver-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.callweaver.org/mailman/listinfo/callweaver-dev
