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