Summary:ASTERISK-10821: use 'busylevel' consistently
Reporter:pj (pj)Labels:
Date Opened:2007-11-19 13:12:14.000-0600Date Closed:2007-11-20 15:14:33.000-0600
Versions:Frequency of
Description:in sip.conf we use:
in SIPPEER() we have argument:
I think, it should be used consistently in both, ie. busy-level or busylevel.
I personaly vote for 'busylevel', because 'busy-level' is currently only one option, with dash in sip.conf.
Comments:By: Digium Subversion (svnbot) 2007-11-19 17:22:17.000-0600

Repository: asterisk
Revision: 89441

U   trunk/CHANGES
U   trunk/channels/chan_sip.c

r89441 | mmichelson | 2007-11-19 17:22:16 -0600 (Mon, 19 Nov 2007) | 7 lines

Changed the "busy-level" option in sip.conf to "busylevel" to be more parallel
with the SIPPEER() argument of the same name. The deprecation procedure is not
being used here since this is a trunk-only option.

(closes issue ASTERISK-10821, reported by pj, patched by me)


By: pj (pj) 2007-11-20 09:59:03.000-0600

please reflect sip.conf option change (busy-level=>busylevel) also to sip.conf.sample, thanks.

By: Mark Michelson (mmichelson) 2007-11-20 10:04:25.000-0600

Yes, thank you. It completely slipped my mind.

By: Digium Subversion (svnbot) 2007-11-20 10:09:02.000-0600

Repository: asterisk
Revision: 89453

U   trunk/configs/sip.conf.sample

r89453 | mmichelson | 2007-11-20 10:09:01 -0600 (Tue, 20 Nov 2007) | 6 lines

Changed occurrences of "busy-level" to "busylevel" in sip.conf.sample
in light of commit 89441. Thanks to pj for pointing out the need for this

(closes issue ASTERISK-10821, reported by pj)


By: Leif Madsen (lmadsen) 2007-11-20 10:53:29.000-0600

Why don't we make this consistent and make the options:

${SIPPEER(call-limit)}  instead of  ${SIPPEER(limit)}


${SIPPEER(busy-limit)}  instead of  ${SIPPEER(busylimit)}

That way you don't have to change chan_sip at all, and there is no need to deprecate anything in sip.conf. You'd just have to deprecate the use of 'limit', and no need to deprecate busylimit since it is only in trunk.

Just a thought! :)

By: pj (pj) 2007-11-20 12:15:25.000-0600

personaly, I don't like dash "-" in option name.

By: Leif Madsen (lmadsen) 2007-11-20 12:30:44.000-0600

Me either really... I guess the only other option is to deprecate call-limit in sip.conf, but calllimit as an option name is a terrible idea.

And if you want to make things consistent across SIPPEER() and sip.conf, those are pretty much your only two options. It makes little sense to fix busylimit and not fix call-limit so everything is consistent.

So my vote is still call-limit and busy-limit in both SIPPEER() and sip.conf.

By: Olle Johansson (oej) 2007-11-20 13:43:46.000-0600

The reason for the dash in the call-limit was that three l's would often be mispeled, you know...
Call-limit is in 1.4, release code, so we can't change it easily. busy-limit can be implemented since it's new in trunk. I vote for "call-limit" and "busy-limit".

By: pj (pj) 2007-11-20 13:55:46.000-0600

call-limit OK, but why do you think, that is better busy-level than busylevel? or do you thinking about completely replace busylevel to busy-limit?

By: Leif Madsen (lmadsen) 2007-11-20 13:57:52.000-0600

Aha... I guess I kinda looked at it wrong. I was reading it as busy-limit. Maybe that's what it should be?

By: Olle Johansson (oej) 2007-11-20 14:00:20.000-0600

Sorry, didn't think. Blitzrage fooled me.
Call-limit, busy-level

blitz-rage :-)

By: Olle Johansson (oej) 2007-11-20 14:28:53.000-0600

pj: You even reported this bug for "busylimit", so we're all confused :-)

By: Leif Madsen (lmadsen) 2007-11-20 14:47:19.000-0600

oej: he did?  Are you sure you're not the one who is confused?

By: Leif Madsen (lmadsen) 2007-11-20 14:49:06.000-0600

oej: oh -- you changed the topic :D

Stop confusing me! :)

By: pj (pj) 2007-11-20 15:03:40.000-0600

I think we spend too much time with this. Changes are commited yet, but if you have some reasonable argument, why do you like busy-level more than busylevel it can be reverted. but, imho, dash should be used only exemptionaly, one example is call-limit, due to three lll.

By: Olle Johansson (oej) 2007-11-20 15:11:27.000-0600

Sorry, we're just having a bit of fun in the middle of all bug reports.

We kind of agreed on "busylevel" and then drifted out to another discussion about deprecating call-limit. Mailed to asterisk-dev about that.

By: Olle Johansson (oej) 2007-11-20 15:14:32.000-0600

Ok, this is already fixed by putnopvut. End of discussion. In regards to call-limit and limit, let's see what happens on the -dev list.