|Summary:||ASTERISK-05181: [patch] Manager SendEvent|
|Date Opened:||2005-09-28 20:13:06||Date Closed:||2006-05-20 08:30:40|
|Environment:||Attachments:||( 0) 20060301__bug5324.diff.txt|
( 1) 20060302__bug5324.diff.txt
( 2) 20060518__bug5324.diff.txt
( 3) manager.c.sendevent.diff.txt
|Description:||allows a no response userevent in the manager.|
body: Calling for BACKUP
Body: Calling for BACKUP
****** ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ******
i wasn't sure if you guys wanted it to be specific. meaning
but that would be easy to replicate for the others.
|Comments:||By: Olle Johansson (oej) 2005-11-22 08:20:25.000-0600|
Can you please explain the usage of this, hrrm, "useless", manager command? :-)
By: Russell Bryant (russell) 2005-12-21 10:06:44.000-0600
I think it would make more sense to make this more consistent with the UserEvent application.
For reference ... 'show application UserEvent' shows the format:
Event: UserEvent<specified event name>
Channel: <channel name>
Uniqueid: <call uniqueid>
Of course, the "Channel" and "Uniqueid" fields do not make sense in this case, but the "Event" could be generated in the same format.
By: outtolunc (outtolunc) 2005-12-21 10:35:44.000-0600
just delete this, i'll maintain my own copy.
By: Russell Bryant (russell) 2005-12-21 18:43:20.000-0600
I am definitely not questioning the usefulness of this feature. I am only suggesting that all generated UserEvents are done so in a consistent format.
By: outtolunc (outtolunc) 2005-12-22 06:36:49.000-0600
one called it 'useless', you think it should follow 'channel' based dialplan/app structure...
there is no SPOON! (err channel)
so why would/should it 'follow' that structure?
hense it is ManagerUserEvent. hmm
btw: the 'only' thing that 'needs' to be done to make it 'follow' anything i myself mentioned in the original post, and that is making all the 'types'...
By: Russell Bryant (russell) 2005-12-26 09:59:58.000-0600
Did you read this comment? "Of course, the "Channel" and "Uniqueid" fields do not make sense in this case, but the "Event" could be generated in the same format."
I'm saying that the Event: header in all generated User Events need to be in the same format. Are you arguing that consistency is a bad idea?
By: outtolunc (outtolunc) 2006-01-05 20:24:47.000-0600
quite the opposite, consistancy is good, which is why i even offered to make
the issue i have is trying to 'conform' the patch to look like a 'pbx event' when it isn't. it's a manager event and therefore has no channel nor unique id.
i can't make it any clearer.
do with it what you will, as always, anything i put here is for the project. (disclaimed)
so have at it.
side note: i am NOT trying to give you more thankless crap. just trying to place this outside the box, which is where it should be. it's inter-manager session communication, nothing more.
By: outtolunc (outtolunc) 2006-01-06 01:06:05.000-0600
nevermind, i had a taste of the 'users' asterisk has nowdays..
i didn't like it.
i am recinding my auth for mods.
that means NOTHING from this time forward is under the disclaimer. (which will be none) till you take control of the channel again.
its truely sad, i love this project.
By: outtolunc (outtolunc) 2006-01-06 01:07:08.000-0600
you can just delete my user also, thats how po'd i am.
By: Olle Johansson (oej) 2006-01-26 02:11:37.000-0600
outtolunc: I added a smiley and added quotation marks around "useless" to tell you I was joking a bit with you. Sorry if you misunderstood that. At that point I did not understand the usefulness of the command and asked for an explanation, since I did not figure out how to use it.
My apologies for the misunderstanding.
By: Tilghman Lesher (tilghman) 2006-03-01 18:01:39.000-0600
New patch, works a little differently:
Every header other than Action and UserEvent may be specified however you like and it will pass on that header to the fired event. I think this makes it fairly versatile in terms of being able to define your own custom events. If everybody likes it, we'll get this into trunk by the end of the week.
By: Russell Bryant (russell) 2006-03-01 18:10:51.000-0600
This sounds reasonable to me. Should the the UserEvent application be updated to use this format as well?
By: Tilghman Lesher (tilghman) 2006-03-01 22:06:38.000-0600
Sure, I suppose the dialplan app should introduce the change in trunk only, right?
By: outtolunc (outtolunc) 2006-03-01 23:46:32.000-0600
sounds like someone else isn't too happy with MOD input <G>
By: outtolunc (outtolunc) 2006-03-01 23:52:29.000-0600
the only reason i'm posting is noone removed my auth as i suggested (and continued on a patch that went sideways).. so 'you did this to yourself' !!!!
anyways, when the patch was originally posted it was the lack of 'channel bs that stopped it, now another person presents a new one (still without the chan vars the first one lacked) and " This sounds reasonable to me." from the same person that started the for round of BS.
so, i ask for ANOTHER mod to take over on this patch(es)
By: outtolunc (outtolunc) 2006-03-01 23:59:07.000-0600
if you guys haven't gotten it yet, i'm tired of the bs (like many other PATCH posters)
so, either get the clue, or get there will be more forks (the last one even i didn't like (go figure)).
By: Russell Bryant (russell) 2006-03-02 00:45:33.000-0600
Once again, I stress that my only intended suggestion for this patch (or any related patch) is that we strive use a consistent format for Events. I was providing another example where we have user generated events. Whichever way this goes, I feel they should be consistent.
Also, just so it is noted, if the dialplan application is changed, we will need to update UPGRADE.txt as well.
By: Tilghman Lesher (tilghman) 2006-03-02 12:07:03.000-0600
New patch: makes the event generation consistent between the manager and the application.
By: Serge Vecher (serge-v) 2006-05-18 15:08:17
Corydon76: does this need a new patch?
By: Tilghman Lesher (tilghman) 2006-05-18 15:28:45
Patch updated to current trunk
By: Russell Bryant (russell) 2006-05-20 08:30:39
added to the trunk in revision 29017, thanks!