Re: MWI handling

[Gregg Liming <gregg@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoting Kevin Hawkins (10/4/05 7:37 AM):
> Gregg Liming wrote:
>> Quoting Kevin Hawkins

>>>It may also be that sub addressing is not approriate in that
although
>>>there are many possible candidates for such a division none fit
>>>naturally.
>>>
>>I' m fairly certain that the subaddressing proposal above should
handle
>>most any asterisk situation and is "backwards compatible"
w/ the current
>>line concept.
>>
> Give it a go - try it and see - realistically the xAP Asterisk users
are
> fairly small installs anyway.  If you support both a highly
granularised
> approach and also an additional schema where much of the information
is
> contained within one large block with a 'line summary' or equivalent
> .info message and a  .event when anything changes  (and all call
detail
> / endpoints info etc within a block) then people could choose which
way
> they interact with your application.     I'm sort of liking the 3
> endpoint approach though - handset/group, line and call.

Kevin,

I appreciate your persistence with answering all of my questions.  I've
"chopped" one of the last messages in an effort to bring some
initial
closure wrt at least my work toward the asterisk connector.
Specifically, I feel a need to make choices/decisions relative to what
the asterisk connector (aka axc) will and won't initially support.

Originally, I naively thought that adopting the current CID.Meteor and
CTI schemas within axc would be sufficient to interoperate with SB.  It
now appears that any initial support--while perhaps addressing almost
all functional capabilities--would be necessarily constrained wrt call
concurrency.  While the above hybrid "handset-carrier" approach
might
address the large percentage of initial axc-SB user needs, it is
entirely possible that the current opposing views on whether calls
should or should not be tracked on their own UID could drive continuing
interaction between axc and SB to a greater distance and eventually
totally dissolve.  Therefore, I'm tentatively withdrawing my immediate
plans to deliver axc that would help/support SB users.  Due to the
volatility in various schemas and design patterns that--in my
opinion--appropriately address VoIP needs, I will plan to move forward
with one of your original recommendations--to develop a new CTI (CTI2?)
schema that can satisfactorily address VoIP and specifically support
more near-term asterisk needs.  This will allow me to focus on a
concrete schema that is not also limiting.  To the extent possible, I
will work to make CTI2 as similar as possible to CTI--with hopes that
they can eventually converge.

Regards,

Gregg