> The end goal would be the ability to plug a Python or Perl interpreter
> into Asterisk and have the Python or Perl script run in parallel with a
> Dial Plan rather than being called out from the Dial Plan.
As much as I love Python: it would probably not be useful, because in
Python there is the
At 3:12 PM -0500 on 8/18/04, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
On Wednesday 18 August 2004 13:37, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote:
On Wednesday 18 August 2004 14:32, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 August 2004 08:46, John Todd wrote:
> > I hadn't really considered actually making it a filesystem in
> > exac
On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 08:39, John Todd wrote:
> An alternate method would be to create an application, as has been
> suggested. This may be more modular and require less patches to the
> "mainline" code (though that is a poor reason to choose one method
> over the other - "convenience of expla
Glenn wrote:
>I am unable to compile asterisk-1.0-RC2 on MacOS v10.3.5:
>
>GNU Bison version 1.28
You need a more recent version of Bison (recommended is
1.75).
See the Wiki for info how to upgrade ...
http://www.voip-info.org/tiki-index.php?page=Asterisk+MacOSX
Yes we did.
The ticket shown below is a patch integrating lots of new stuff to the queue
app, but is not the first implementation of these features.
Our original code implementing the CLI and the manager interface was submitted
to Mark Spencer by mid-2003, and its pieces can be found on this p
Is there a concentrated effort to have a SQL driver for extensions.conf ?
Right now I have the LERG for some LATAs I'm terminating to loaded in as a
flat file and it seems to work okay, but I would like to be able to
dynamically add and remove extensions for origination via an outside
interface and
On Wednesday 18 August 2004 13:37, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 August 2004 14:32, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
> > On Tuesday 17 August 2004 08:46, John Todd wrote:
> > > I hadn't really considered actually making it a filesystem in
> > > exactly the same way /proc worked; I just wanted to
On Wednesday 18 August 2004 14:31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > What are your feelings on a /proc-style filesystem for asterisk "live"
> > data? That's precisely what /proc is like under Linux and it seems to
> > make a *lot* of sense, at least in a transient data kind of sense.
> As long as its
> What are your feelings on a /proc-style filesystem for asterisk "live"
> data? That's precisely what /proc is like under Linux and it seems to
> make a *lot* of sense, at least in a transient data kind of sense.
As long as its kind of SNMP-like on-demand structure (i.e. data isn't
updated in thi
On Wednesday 18 August 2004 14:32, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 August 2004 08:46, John Todd wrote:
> > I hadn't really considered actually making it a filesystem in
> > exactly the same way /proc worked; I just wanted to lay out the
> > structure with the "/" as the inter-field designato
10 matches
Mail list logo
