[Freeswitch-users] Stability vs Features

[Brian West]

On Aug 31, 2006, at 12:33 PM, Vikram Rangnekar wrote:

> I assume the goal here is to develop a carrier grade soft-switch. I
> understand features are great but features would cost us. As we add
> features the stability would degrade. I agree that adding C# support
> is an intresting idea but do we really need it adding mono into
> FreeSwitch I understand its a great thing for C# developers but mono
> is not super-stable.
>


Since mod_mono is a module you can leave it out and not chance any  
stability issues if thats your choice.  We don't strong arm you into  
a way of doing things. (ie we don't glue the lego bricks together)

> I personal opinion is to work towards defining a minimum set of
> features that are absolutely critical and then making those features
> stable and relatively bug free.
>

That is our goal also.  The core MUST be stable thats the bottom line.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4613750174577358330&q=cluecon

That video is Anthony speaking about freeswitch at cluecon.  Just pay  
attention to the audio.. the video is blurry.

> In Freeswitch much of the features or protocol support is based on
> external libraries this can be a good thing and a bad thing too. Since
> each of those libraries would probably have bugs and that means making
> sure that those libraries are also actively maintained.

Yes we do depend on external libs.  But we also push fixes and  
changes back to those projects so that stays a two way street.  If  
one becomes un-maintained we'll just take over on that and continue  
with maintaining it.

The bottom line is STABLE CORE.   The core will extend itself to  
building features with ease once its complete.

/b