Hi Raúl, Raúl Alexis Betancor Santana wrote: > On Tuesday 04 August 2009 13:03:02 Jeff Pyle wrote: > >> Raul, perhaps I can explain from the perspective of someone who may benefit >> from such misplaced features. >> > > >> "Better" is in the eye of the beholder. Or, perhaps in these cases, in the >> eye of the implementer. If topology hiding is the only B2BUA-style feature >> I need and all my other requirements are satisfied by a proxy like >> Opensips, why would I re-engineer my whole system on a different platform? >> > > Maybe because "hidding" module of OpenSIPS is based on a broken dialog > module ? ... that's a good reason for me. > saying that the dialog module is broken is an over-statement - I admit there are some issues that still need to be worked out in the module (forking and early dialogs) - see the thread on the devel mailing list, but otherwise the module is pretty fine. >> The good news is many if not all of these features have an "off" switch for >> the uninterested parties to throw. It's not often that everyone wins. >> > > I know, maybe someday in a near (or not so near) future, I could use some of > that fancy features, by now I prefer to have a SIP-Proxy+Registrar+Presence > on Kamailio (sorry I don't use OpenSIPS That explains why you have such a good opinion over the dialog module ;). So I understand your statements on the OpenSIPS dialog module is done without actually testing it... > ) and B2BUA features on Callweaver > GW's > you can do the same think in many ways. Depends of what you aim to do and how suitable to components you are using are for your purpose - a B2BUA is a powerful component (and intensive resource consumer) you can use for changing a header in a request or for doing complex call/media bridging .
Regards, Bogdan _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
