Martin Hoffmann wrote: > Jiri Kuthan wrote: >> Andrei Pelinescu-Onciul wrote: >>> General requirements: >>> >>> - ? exception support (under discussion)? >> I think we should also clearly state the scope, i.e., what circumstances >> are actually supposed to raise an exception. There are all kinds of >> "failures": failed routing logic (no route, user-location lookup hasn't >> yielded a contact) , server error (no memory), failed external >> interaction (database, DNS), failed network operation (no route found >> for forwarding), failed transaction processing (timeout). >> >> Also in this context, if we do it, it could be meaningful to change >> failure_route and such to be exceptions. > > My original intention was to only have exceptions for fatal errors that > result in sending of a response back to the UAC.
I think we are better specific on this ... all of the cases before shall result in an error code sent back. It may be possibly easier exercise to figure out when NOT to raise exceptions. -jiri > I admit, though, that > the more general idea of having events has its beauty. > > Regards, > Martin > _______________________________________________ > Serdev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serdev > _______________________________________________ Serdev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serdev
