<div dir="ltr">Oops, I forgot to mention anthm as well - he provided great feedback on irc!<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Luke Graybill <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:killarny@gmail.com">killarny@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir="ltr"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="Ih2E3d">On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Luke Graybill <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:killarny@gmail.com" target="_blank">killarny@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div><div class="Ih2E3d"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div dir="ltr">My suggested solution is to apply the job-id concept from bgapi to
messages as well, and to go a step further; borrow the Asterisk idea of
transmitting an identifier along with each command. Every
response and event related to that command should then contain the very
same identifier in the header.</div>
</blockquote></div></div><br>After speaking with bkw and MikeJ on irc, I'd like to further clarify my suggestion to account for the fact that not all events apply directly to specific commands, but for the ones which do (such as CHANNEL_EXECUTE_COMPLETE, and for non-events, like command/reply) I believe the suggestion stands :)<br>
<br>Killarny<br></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>