Anthony, Yes, you are right, I was thinking strictly in terms of SIP gateways. I guess that instead on the tag "gateway", one could use "channel"? For example: <action application="bridge"> <!-- set some kind of *bridge-specific* variable --> <channel order=1 data="sofia/gateway/gw-1/1$1"/> <channel order=1 data="sofia/gateway/gw-2/1$1"/> <channel order=2 data="sofia/gateway/gw-3/1$1"> <!-- set some kind of *channel-specific* variable --> </channel > <channel order=3 data="sofia/gateway/gw-4/1$1"/> </action> Would this be acceptable to you? Regarding the combinations of continue_on_fail and hangup_after bridge, I'll give that a try although I suspect it will result in less structured and harder to understand markup... Thanks! Carlos Anthony Minessale wrote:
This suggestion violates the scope boundaries.
gateways are specific concept to mod_sofia so a <gateway> tag in <action> (part of agnostic xml dialplan) does not flow properly.
you can also use combinations of continue_on_fail and hangup_after bridge so you can just put each bridge statement in it's own action.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Carlos S. Antunes <csa@nowthor.com <mailto:csa@nowthor.com>> wrote:
Max,
I would like to see something similar too. For example, it would be wonderful if one could specify multiple gateways to try like this or something similar:
<action application="bridge"> <!-- set some kind of *bridge-specific* parameter/variable --> <gateway order=1 data="sofia/gateway/gw-1/1$1"/> <gateway order=1 data="sofia/gateway/gw-2/1$1"/> <gateway order=2 data="sofia/gateway/gw-3/1$1"> <!-- set some kind of *gw-specific* parameter/variable --> </gateway> <gateway order=3 data="sofia/gateway/gw-4/1$1"/> </action>
One would be able to avoid the "[]" and "{}" hacks and combine sequential and simultaneous trying of gateways.
What do the developers think of this?
Carlos
Max Ivanov wrote: > Nowdays I 'm forced to put multiple "|" to find first free gateway, ie > sofia/gateway/panas111/1000|sofia/gateway/panas112/1000|sofia/gateway/panas113/1000 > , > the whole sting is tooo long, is there any shorter way to write same thing? Like > "sofia/gateway/panas*/1000" will try all gateways matching the pattern. > > _______________________________________________ > FreeSWITCH-users mailing list > FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org <mailto:FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org> > http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users > UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users > http://www.freeswitch.org > >
_______________________________________________ FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org <mailto:FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org
-- Anthony Minessale II
FreeSWITCH http://www.freeswitch.org/ ClueCon http://www.cluecon.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/FreeSWITCH_wire
AIM: anthm MSN:anthony_minessale@hotmail.com <mailto:MSN%3Aanthony_minessale@hotmail.com> GTALK/JABBER/PAYPAL:anthony.minessale@gmail.com <mailto:PAYPAL%3Aanthony.minessale@gmail.com> IRC: irc.freenode.net <http://irc.freenode.net> #freeswitch
FreeSWITCH Developer Conference sip:888@conference.freeswitch.org <mailto:sip%3A888@conference.freeswitch.org> iax:guest@conference.freeswitch.org/888 <http://iax:guest@conference.freeswitch.org/888> googletalk:conf+888@conference.freeswitch.org <mailto:googletalk%3Aconf%2B888@conference.freeswitch.org> pstn:213-799-1400 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ FreeSWITCH-users mailing list FreeSWITCH-users@lists.freeswitch.org http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users http://www.freeswitch.org