Alex Balashov wrote:
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
>>
>> On 10/16/08 22:07, Alex Balashov wrote:
>>> Ovidiu Sas wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> If it is loose_route() that I need to correlate subsequent in-dialog
>>>>> requests, why? As you said, if no RR cookies are being used, why
>>>>> should the
>>>>> proxy care about the Route: header?
>>>>>
>>>> I don't know how to put it better in other words :(
>>>> The proxy doesn't care about the Route header.
>>>> The proxy uses the record routing mechanism as a hook into the dialog
>>>> internals and the matching is done inside the dialog module. After
>>>> that, the dialog module will chose the matching mechanism.
>>>>
>>> I got that.
>>>
>>> So, why does matching not work unless I call loose_route(), regardless
>>> of match mode? :-)
>>>
>> the matching is triggered by execution of Route processing callbacks
>> that happen only by calling loose_route().
>>
>> The dialog module registers a function to be called when the Route
>> header is processed. In this function the dialog module does the
>> matching algorithm. To get independent of that, for matching mode 2, a
>> function should be exported by dialog for explicit call in the script,
>> something like:
>>
>> if(dialog_match())
>> {
>> ....
>> }
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Daniel
>
> That's what I figured; there was something in the callback architecture
> that caused the module to otherwise not see the requests.
>
> Cool - that explains it!
>
BTW, I do think it would be a good idea for the dialog module to export
these functions directly into the script symbols so they can be called
that way. I do not like to do loose routing unnecessarily / when I have
no use for it.
-- Alex
--
Alex Balashov
Evariste Systems
Web : http://www.evaristesys.com/
Tel : (+1) (678) 954-0670
Direct : (+1) (678) 954-0671
Mobile : (+1) (706) 338-8599
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users@lists.kamailio.org
http://lists.kamailio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
