Summary:	ASTERISK-03473: IVR API for apps
Reporter:	Anthony Minessale (anthm)	Labels:
Date Opened:	2005-02-10 10:33:49.000-0600	Date Closed:	2011-06-07 14:05:28
Priority:	Major	Regression?	No
Status:	Closed/Complete	Components:	Core/General
Versions:		Frequency of Occurrence
Related Issues:
Environment:		Attachments:	( 0) app_ivrdemo.c ( 1) ivr_api.c ( 2) ivr_api.h ( 3) makefile.diff
Description:	This is a little API I made yesterday afternoon inspired by my rant in bug 3487 It still probably needs some more features. See attached files. INSTALL put the ivr_api.h in /usr/src/asterisk/include/asterisk put the ivr_api.c in /usr/src/asterisk patch the main Makefile edit the app_ivrtest.c to do something useful. ****** ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ****** Disclaimer on file anthmct@yahoo.com
Comments:	By: Olle Johansson (oej) 2005-02-10 10:42:22.000-0600 An IVR developer API? Interesting stuff. What do you see as the main benefit of building this way compared with dialplan? Is it ok to move this to experimental features for now? By: Anthony Minessale (anthm) 2005-02-10 10:46:27.000-0600 It's what you should use to design app_voicemail_that_doesnt_make_you_dizzy.c Put it where you want, I picked core cos it adds an OBJ file to the asterisk binary. =) edited on: 02-10-05 10:48 By: Mark Spencer (markster) 2005-02-17 09:00:17.000-0600 I've added my "static IVR" concept (not at all a complete implementation, but roughed out to the point that you can see what I'm talking about) to CVS head.  I've tried to mix several concepts together into the simplest yet extensible framework I could come up with.  You'll see that it looks not entirely unlike extension logic.   I still think there should be a dynamic version, like what is proposed/implemented here, but having a static version would be useful too.  Of course we'd want to use the same structures! By: Anthony Minessale (anthm) 2005-02-17 09:55:15.000-0600 sigh, I feel like I wasted my time now. be grateful this is all I have to say cos I calmed down an erased my first reply. By: damin (damin) 2005-03-11 09:12:42.000-0600 It sounds like there is still more work to be done on this issue. Should we hold this open? Should we close it? Please advise. By: Michael Jerris (mikej) 2005-03-24 12:25:05.000-0600 MOC said he was going to take this one on. By: Michael Jerris (mikej) 2005-06-02 23:47:29 Ok, this one's dead it seems.  If anyone wants to revive it reopen with an updated patch.