Definitely. File this one under "duh"
-MC

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Phillip Jones <pjintheusa@gmail.com> wrote:
A cookbook entry perhaps.....

On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:32 PM, Sergey Okhapkin <sos@sokhapkin.dyndns.org> wrote:
Thank you for the session_in_hangup_hook hint...

On Monday 18 October 2010, Michael Collins wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Sergey Okhapkin
>
> <sos@sokhapkin.dyndns.org>wrote:
> > The "h" extension in asterisk is a feature I used extensively. Lack of a
> > hangup dialplan handler makes DP programming in FS harder and less clear.
>
> That's what api_hangup_hook is for. Call ends, do an API that can do pretty
> much anything you can imagine and you're done. You can even set
> session_in_hangup_hook to true so that you have the channel's variables
> available even though the channel has been disconnected.
>
> > Fortunately, CDR handlers allow to do some post call cleanup work, but
> > in- dialplan implementation would be much better and clearer.
>
> Much better? No. Much clearer, possibly. The benefits of not doing cleanup
> work in the dialplan AFTER the channel has gone away far outweigh the
> drawbacks. Use api_hangup_hook and session_in_hangup_hook=true. Doing this
> stuff outside the dialplan is more efficient and less error-prone.
>
> -MC
>




_______________________________________________
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