Hello,
On 9/12/11 9:47 AM, Juha Heinanen wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla writes:
have had any time to try the patch I sent? Thinking of committing it,
but no presence server environment at hand for me to try it quickly...
daniel,
sorry, i forgot about it. is it really a good idea to allow any etag?
based on your previous emails, looked like useful when publishing is
done from different points, personally I haven't come to such needs.
would it be better to require that etag matches if given and is not "."?
i was able to solve my problem by always using ".", when there are more
than one source that can issue publish for the same presentity.
By using ".", the presence server will create a new e-tag, right? It is
not an update to an existing presence document, but creation of a new one.
Perhaps the best would be to me able to control this matching, to force
or not when etag is present. From code point of view, even there is no
record in PUA matching the etag, the publish is sent and added in PUA
table only in case of 200ok. So, if there is no etag match on server
side, then the return code should be 412 (iirc atm), so no new record
added in pua.
All seemed to be fine, anyhow, ultimately we can leave the patch for 3.3
if you don't need it and nobody else wants it for the moment -- I can
upload it on tracker for availability.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
Daniel-Constantin Mierla -- http://www.asipto.com
Kamailio Advanced Training, Oct 10-13, Berlin: http://asipto.com/u/kat
http://linkedin.com/in/miconda -- http://twitter.com/miconda
_______________________________________________
SIP Express Router (SER) and Kamailio (OpenSER) - sr-users mailing list
sr-users@lists.sip-router.org
http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-users
