[OpenSIPS-Users] Feature request for OpenSIPS 1.9: support for macro definitions

[Ali Pey]

Thank you Bogdan...


On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <bogdan at opensips.org>wrote:

> **
> Hi Ali,
>
> Added on the list http://www.opensips.org/Main/Ver190#toc9 with a quite
> high priority ;).
>
> Regards,
>
> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
> OpenSIPS Founder and Developerhttp://www.opensips-solutions.com
>
>
> On 11/08/2012 07:06 PM, Ali Pey wrote:
>
> I second this as well. Named flags would make debugging and scripting
> quite simpler.
>
>  Regards,
> Ali
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Bogdan-Andrei Iancu <bogdan at opensips.org>wrote:
>
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> You can already use names for the route, not only numerical IDs (without
>> the need of defining).
>>
>> For flags, you can use only numbers, indeed - usually I use M4 as text
>> preprocessor to do different complex ops over the script (like defines,
>> ifdefs, etc).
>> But maybe a built in support for names of flags will not be a big issue,
>> especially it is not a big deal.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Bogdan-Andrei Iancu
>> OpenSIPS Founder and Developer
>> http://www.opensips-solutions.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/08/2012 01:22 PM, Michael Renzmann wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all.
>>>
>>> I'm relatively new to OpenSIPS and still am at the very beginning of
>>> learning how to tame this wonderful beast ;-).
>>>
>>> One thing that I, personally, find pretty uncomfortable is that in
>>> various
>>> places in the opensips.cfg one needs to use plain numbers to define or
>>> modify the behaviour. That easily results in constructs like:
>>>
>>> === cut ===
>>> route {
>>>      ...
>>>      route(42);
>>>      ...
>>> }
>>>
>>> route[42] {
>>>      ...
>>>      setflag(8);
>>>      ...
>>> }
>>> === cut ===
>>>
>>> Obviously, it is possible to memorize the meaning of the different
>>> numbers
>>> depending on the context they are used in - this is what people do now
>>> when they work with OpenSIPS. But I guess things may become pretty
>>> painful
>>> when you have a complex configuration and need to urgently debug an issue
>>> in it which just has brought down a heavily loaded, productively used
>>> OpenSIPS instance...
>>>
>>> Using comments certainly helps to relieve the problem a bit, but they can
>>> not solve it. However, things would become much easier if one could use
>>> "speaking names" instead of plain numbers:
>>>
>>> === cut ===
>>> define(ROUTE_NAT_DETECTION, 42);
>>> define(FLAG_NAT_DETECTED, 8);
>>>
>>> route {
>>>     ...
>>>     route(ROUTE_NAT_DETECTION);
>>>     ...
>>> }
>>>
>>> route[ROUTE_NAT_DETECTION] {
>>>     ...
>>>     setflag(FLAG_NAT_DETECTED);
>>>     ...
>>> }
>>> === cut ===
>>>
>>> Yes, I am aware that this could also be achieved by using an external
>>> macro preprocessor such as M4. But that would add another dependency -
>>> one
>>> which could be avoided if OpenSIPS had built-in support for simple macro
>>> definitions like those shown in the example above.
>>>
>>> Bye, Mike
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Users mailing list
>>> Users at lists.opensips.org
>>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Users mailing list
>> Users at lists.opensips.org
>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing listUsers at lists.opensips.orghttp://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensips.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20121108/93d31398/attachment.htm>