Hi,
On 04/10/2013 11:02 AM, Jon Bonilla (Manwe) wrote:
I think it is a bad idea to name the relay "mediaproxy-ng" and the
corresponding Kamailio module "rtpproxy-ng".
Indeed
Well, the point is that it's "just" an enhancement of the rtpproxy
module. In the past, the rtpproxy module was used to communicate with
mediaproxy-ng (and can still be used that way), as mediaproxy-ng
implements the rtpproxy protocol.
The idea behind rtpproxy-ng was to provide a reference implementation of
an easily extensible control protocol (as we needed it for our ICE
handling anyways), because there were some discussions and plans to
rework rtpproxy towards such a kind of protocol as well (JSON was one of
the formats, but we rather went with bencode as it's faster to parse and
still somewhat human readable). Mind you we're still working on the
protocol documentation.
Now the real question is whether it makes sense to extend rtpproxy to
use this protocol as well, and in this case rtpproxy-ng as a module name
makes perfect sense. It would probably be a good idea to merge it to
rtpproxy module and just use that at some point (requiring to upgrade
rtpproxy along with kamailio though, or control the protocol version via
a module parameter).
If there are no intentions to develop rtpproxy further, it would make
sense to name our module mediaproxy-ng instead of rtpproxy-ng. The
module is still only in our repo and not pushed upstream exactly because
of this kind of naming decision (besides the lack of documentation).
Andreas
_______________________________________________
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
