|Summary:||ASTERISK-16372: [Patch] Increment the Asterisk Call Manager version|
|Reporter:||Ludovic Gasc (Eyepea) (gmludo)||Labels:|
|Date Opened:||2010-07-15 08:18:53||Date Closed:||2010-07-19 12:10:42|
|Environment:||Attachments:||( 0) manager.h.patch|
|Description:||When you connect on the AMI interface, the first line is:|
Asterisk Call Manager/1.1
Between Asterisk 1.4 and Asterisk 1.6, you've increase the version number (1.0 => 1.1).
We propose to increment the version again for Asterisk 1.8.
This version number is important for the Asterisk frameworks, to know the server's capacities, because some commands output like iaxpeers have changed into Asterisk 1.8.
|Comments:||By: Leif Madsen (lmadsen) 2010-07-16 10:11:08|
You should also bring this up on the asterisk-dev list as this is basically a policy decision.
By: Leif Madsen (lmadsen) 2010-07-16 13:49:33
By: Paul Belanger (pabelanger) 2010-07-16 13:51:45
Perhaps we should sync this to the major version of Asterisk released? IE: 1.8
By: Ben Klang (bklang) 2010-07-16 13:56:38
As someone responsible for the maintenance of a library for interacting with AGI/AMI, this issue is very near and dear to my heart. My personal opinion is that the version number of the protocol should only change if the protocol itself actually changes in some way (argument delimiters, for example). Simply adding new directives doesn't necessarily change the protocol.
That being said, having access to the version number of Asterisk when I open a new AMI channel or receive a new AGI connection would be of great value. Passing that as a distinct variable would be my preference.
By: Russell Bryant (russell) 2010-07-16 14:26:31
In Asterisk 1.8 at least, there is a CoreSettings action that among other things provides the Asterisk version number in the response.
By: Russell Bryant (russell) 2010-07-16 14:27:02
CoreSettings is also in 1.6.2.
By: Ludovic Gasc (Eyepea) (gmludo) 2010-07-16 15:10:04
The AMI protocol isn't normalized nor implemented by others programs like HTTP, to my knowledge.
From my point of view, it isn't necessary to provide a specific number version for the AMI protocol, the Asterisk version is enough.
Now, with the presence of CoreSettings action, you should remove the version in the "Asterisk Call Manager" line, it's redundant, isn't it ?
Or maybe replace AMI_VERSION by the complete version of Asterisk (1.6.2 for example) (ASTERISK_VERSION_NUM ?)
By: Russell Bryant (russell) 2010-07-16 15:21:15
I posted to the dev list about this topic:
By: Russell Bryant (russell) 2010-07-19 12:10:28
Based on the discussion here and on the mailing list, I'm going to close this out without making the AMI version number change.
Regarding the "Asterisk Call Manager" line, I do agree it's a bit redundant, and that perhaps putting the Asterisk version number would be more useful. However, I'd rather just leave it how it is to avoid unnecessarily breaking anyone's application that depends on it being there and in the current format.