[OpenSIPS-Users] About OpenSIP "The New Design"

[Iñaki Baz Castillo]

El Jueves, 27 de Noviembre de 2008, Dan Pascu escribió:
> > Well, while it seems good, I consider it impossible (unfortunatelly).
>
> Fortunately, history shows us that progress was done by people who didn't
> knew that something was impossible, so they tried anyway :P

Sure something can be improved, but what I meant is that it's not so easy to 
separates layers when dealing with NAT issues.



> > Sincerelly I consider unfeasible a cool separation between low level
> > and high level functionalities. SIP, NAT and company is too complex to
> > allow an "easy" configuration splitted in abstract layers.
>
> So you suggest we should just stop here, close the lights and go home?

Of course no! I just wanted to say my opinion about some suggestions, just to 
open a debate. Hopefully I'm completely wrong and this kind of layer 
separation is fully feasible ;)


> > ------------------
> > - no special scripting skills will be required (as using common known
> > languages)
> > ------------------
> >
> > ¿?¿? If you need to match a regular expression you need "some"
> > scripting skills. The same if you need to do a "case", "if"...
>
> You missed the point. It's about not needing to learn yet another
> scripting language with all its severe limitations (i.e. opensips.cfg)

Yes, I missed the point, thanks for clarification.


> > ------------------
> > - using existing languages, the scripting become more powerful as it
> > has access to all libs for DB, variables, arrays, string ops, etc.
> > ------------------
> >
> > How would be the performance if OpenSIPS must run PHP/Python/Ruby code
> > for each message?
>
> I'm sick and tired of people being performance experts without running a
> single benchmark, just based on assumptions and common myths. Not to
> mention that in this case it's even more silly as there was no design
> presented yet, just some requirements. So you have no idea how things
> will be, but you can already make absolute claims about the performance
> of the system... I rest my case.

Dan, if you re-read my phrase you will realize that *it was just a question*, 
I'm not doing assumpions.


> > Also there are cool functions in OpenSIPS modules, for
> > example "loose_route()". Would you imagine implementing that funcion in
> > each "possible" high level language?
>
> Where did you read that loose routing will be performed by the application
> layer?
> And BTW, loose_route is not a cool function. It's an oxymoron. Something
> that should be done automatically and you should never even need to know
> about.

Imagine you run the "presence" module in the same box as the proxy. Then you 
do need some logic in your in-dialog section (but not into "loose_route" 
section since in-dialog SUBSCRIBE/PUBLISH will have no Route header pointing 
to our proxy). I think this is a mix between application/routing/core layer, 
is not?
Again: I could be perfectly wrong :)


> That page is just a wishlist.

Of course, I'm just commenting it. ;)




-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo