Hi Feriante!
The TLS syntax has changed and we have forgotten to update the default
config file. As I sad, read the TLS tutorial
(http://openser.org/docs/tls.html) and also the Wiki describes the new
syntax
(http://openser.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=migrating_openser_v1.0.x_to_v1.1.x).
In your case
Dear all, First of all I would like to say thanks to all of you who has given me some helps and suggestions to solve my problem in configuring my openser system. Thank you very much. I have some questions in configuring the TLS now, I do hope anybody can help me. These are the questions: 1. N
Dear all, First of all I would like to say thanks to all of you who has given me some helps and suggestions to solve my problem in configuring my openser system. Thank you very much. I have some questions in configuring the TLS now, I do hope anybody can help me. These are the questions: 1. N
module?
Somebody can help me with this problem?
[1] http://vorigon.com/mhack/openser/20060720-1744/mem_dbg.tar.gz
Marcos Hack wrote:
Hi Bogdan.
I have the same problem as Douglas, but to apply resolve.c patch don't
solve the problem. I'm using version 1.1.0.
Memory debug info is av
Bugs item #1524070, was opened at 2006-07-17 15:23
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by di-shi
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=743020&aid=1524070&group_id=139143
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment th
User: di-shi
Date: 2006/07/20 12:51:13 PDT
OpenSER CVS - Commit Details
Modified files:
modules/osp destination.c destination.h globals.c
orig_transaction.c orig_transaction.h
osp_mod.c osp_mod.h osptoolkit.c
Hey OpenSER peeps,
Finally decided to play around with OpenSER as a number of new
requirements for our platform have arisen which will be met much easier
implemented in OpenSER.
Anywho... The Gentoo ebuild supplied with the 1.1.0 sources needed a
couple little mods to make it func
I'm afraid you can not directly call the t_relay function inside your module.take a look at the file uac.c from the module tm, concretely to the function t_uac and you'll find out how to send a request with the dialog structure.
Samuel.2006/7/20, Simon Morvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
yes, but after ha
yes, but after having called this function, shouldn't I have to call a
"t_relay()" ?
2006/7/20, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi Simon,
your module has to use the TM api to call this function. As you already
register a callback, probably you figured out how to load the TM api.
See mo
not a all - the whole stuff is part of the pv, like a selector on the
initial value. So, there will be nothing to changeagain, it may be
just in idea stage at the moment.
regards,
bogdan
Juha Heinanen wrote:
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu writes:
> another solution might be based on some ideas fro
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu writes:
> another solution might be based on some ideas from Daniel - to be able
> to access parts of a SIP URI even if it is in a pv, like :
>is_domain_local($fu/domain)
>is_domain_local($avp(i:13)/domain)
>
> not sure what is the status of the idea - i
Hi Simon,
your module has to use the TM api to call this function. As you already
register a callback, probably you figured out how to load the TM api.
See modules/tm/tm_load.h, the t_relay api function.
IMPORTANT: note that the parameter types are not the same as from
script. The function exp
another solution might be based on some ideas from Daniel - to be able
to access parts of a SIP URI even if it is in a pv, like :
is_domain_local($fu/domain)
is_domain_local($avp(i:13)/domain)
not sure what is the status of the idea - if implemented or not..I will
talk to him.
reg
Hello there,
I used to redirect a failed call from the config script by doing
append_branch()
and then, t_relay(). I want to do the same thing programmatically from a
module (TCMB_ON_FAILURE event of TM module. I managed to use
the append_branch function from the module but I can't figure out how
yes, this might be a good solution.
regards,
bogdan
Juha Heinanen wrote:
Dan Pascu writes:
> is that just domain, or sip:domain?
sip:domain.
> My aim is for the former case. if
> something like 'adomain.com' is parsed by the URI parser into a domain
> (even if there is no sip: in front
On Thursday 20 July 2006 11:34, Juha Heinanen wrote:
> so looks like we would need two functions:
>
> is_domain_local
>
> and
>
> is_uri_domain_local
this approach would be fine as well. it also has the advantage that the
function naming is more consistent with their behavior and there is less
h
Dan Pascu writes:
> is that just domain, or sip:domain?
sip:domain.
> My aim is for the former case. if
> something like 'adomain.com' is parsed by the URI parser into a domain
> (even if there is no sip: in front of it) then the issue is moot and
> it'll work for both URIs and simple d
Klaus Darilion writes:
> Then would could have another function which parses SIP URIs into user,
> domain and parameters, and another function which parses tel URIs into
> number, paramters and phone-context.
parser has parse_uri function, which could be extended to handle also
tel uris. if
Klaus Darilion writes:
> What is the allowed URI? name-addr or addr-spec? Maybe a generic
> function which parses name-addr into addr-spec might be useful.
uri argument of is_domain_local would need to be an uri as accepted by
parse_uri function. if you need to handle addr-spec or name-addr t
On Thursday 20 July 2006 11:19, Juha Heinanen wrote:
> Dan Pascu writes:
> > Why not make it smart enough to avoid the need to do extra
> > processing in the script.
>
> if i remember correctly, uri can consist of just a domain.
is that just domain, or sip:domain? My aim is for the former case.
Juha Heinanen wrote:
Dan Pascu writes:
> Why not make it smart enough to avoid the need to do extra processing in
> the script.
if i remember correctly, uri can consist of just a domain.
sip:domain
regards
klaus
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@o
Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
My opinion is that the functions should take as parameter an URI and not
just the domain. Normally the script handles SIP uris and not just
domain name, so has no sense to start extending the pvs to just for this
purpose.
The function should properly parse the receive
Dan Pascu writes:
> Why not make it smart enough to avoid the need to do extra processing in
> the script.
if i remember correctly, uri can consist of just a domain.
-- juha
___
Devel mailing list
Devel@openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailm
On Wednesday 19 July 2006 22:24, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu wrote:
> My opinion is that the functions should take as parameter an URI and
> not just the domain. Normally the script handles SIP uris and not just
> domain name, so has no sense to start extending the pvs to just for
> this purpose.
> The fun
24 matches
Mail list logo
