asterisk users - Jan 2006 - [Asterisk-Dev] WAS: click-to-call cleint NOW: XML Manager I/F str aw poll

Disclaimer: Not trolling. Cross-posting to -users to gague support.

-users : Straw poll - if an XML based Manager Interface was avaliable as an
option in asterisk.conf, would that be a good thing, or a stupid thing? 
>Have you ever tried initiating a session via XML with a terminal that 
>doesn't support backspace...
I'm actually proposing that an XML I/F be avaliable as an option in
asterisk.conf. Ditching the manager interface as it is would also be
foolish. Supporting both would be best.
>Parsing XML requires a hell of a lot more weight than parsing the 
>current format.
Yes and no. Depends who's parser you are talking about. The important thing
to remember is that XML parsers are completely platform and language
independent. One of Asterisks' true strengths is that it will plug into
*everything* given enough prodding. An XML interface would facilitate that.
If you chose a crap parser and performance sucked, that's your problem. Use
another. There's lots. The point is, you would not have to reinvent the
wheel every time you wanted to I/F something to Asterisk. How hard would it
be to turn the Manager into an RSS feed if XML were an option? (stupid
example but you get my idea) 
>Tell you the honest truth, I just don't like XML.  Waste of bits.
I've read posts from OEJ (I think) along the same lines - he's an XML
proponent, and Mark is not. He (Mark) feels it's too fat. I'm sure that
the
majority of the guys on -dev hate XML as well. However, XML is not going
away anytime soon - aw hell, it's here to stay, forever. So, might as well
hold your nose, and support it. My gut tells me if you took a straw poll on
-users, an XML implementation would recieve overwhelming acceptance. This is
something that *users* want. You know, the guys that *use* Asterisk. It
would also open the door wide open for all sorts of crazy, interesting,
unique, and cool implementations. And that's what Asterisk is all about. 

More context:
>>>>>XML doesn't need to go into the manager, you can use a
seperate program
>>>>>for that (manager proxy).
(me)
>>>> Although I personally never have experienced the problem
it's my
>>>> understanding that the manager interface does not do well under
load -
>>>> perhaps this is fixed in 1.2. As well, the spec of the manager
interface is
>>>> subject to change - there is a camp that would like to see an
XML
interface
>>>> (including me) and introducing an interface change would break
a lot of
>>>> stuff. 
(Kevin Brockman)
>>>I use the manager extensively and haven't had any problems for a
few
>>>months.  I had a few bugs reported and they were all fixed.  Solid
now.

(Shidan Gouran)
>>Just curious why you would implement it like this and not use the
>>manager interface. What are the benefits of using call files. Is it
>>just blocking issues people have problems witht or something else.
>>I've noticed alot of projects use call files and I  just don't
>>understand how reading and writing  files and your own polling is
>>better than just using the manger interface with simple edge triggers.
(me}
> I have implemented this in Active Server Pages, since we are a Windows
shop,
> but it's not hard to do this in your favorite scripting language. What
you
> need is:
>
> 1. Polling script that examines a directory on your Asterisk server
looking
> for new files in a specific directory (NOT /var/spool/asterisk/outgoing)
> when it finds one, it moves the .call file from that directory to
> /var/spool/asterisk/outgoing
>
> 2. A web page where you POST the number to call and other options, such as
> the callee (extension) and / or the context. On POST, the web page /
script
> assembles the .call file and copies it over to the directory on the
Asterisk
> server. How you implement the copying mechanism is up to you, I used
Samba.
>
> You can see this in action at http://www.landmarkhomes.ca . We had a guy
> call us (in Calgary) from Toronto the other day and he was so impressed
that
> we are at the top of his A-list for consideration (we sell new houses in
> Calgary and Edmonton; this guy was transferring to Calgary for a tech job,
> so nerdy things like this impress him)
>
> If you wish, email me offline and I can send you the script, it's quite
> simple. PS your post belongs on the -users list.
>
>
>
(original post)
>  > i need to write a click-to-call client so that user visit website and
> click on a link, will  > initial a call to a * exten or a zap phone, but
the
> user needn't to install any client  > software to be able to start
the
click
> to call.
>

On 17/01/06, Colin Anderson <ColinA@landmarkmasterbuilder.com>
wrote:
> Disclaimer: Not trolling. Cross-posting to -users to gague support.
>
> -users : Straw poll - if an XML based Manager Interface was avaliable as an
> option in asterisk.conf, would that be a good thing, or a stupid thing?
Good thing. Make it loadable (or do I mean noloadable) so those who
don't like the idea don't suffer any overhead.

Peter
--
Peter Bowyer
Email: peter@bowyer.org
Tel: +44 1296 768003
VoIP: sip:peter@bowyer.org
VoIP: *5048707000@sipbroker.com
FWD: **275*5048707000
VoipTalk: **473*5048707000

> How hard would it
> be to turn the Manager into an RSS feed if XML were an option? (stupid
> example but you get my idea)
How hard is it now for a particular task, about 20 lines of code, in
less than an hour. Writing any sort of xml proxy to the manager
interface is really trivial for any particular task that is. Not in
general as its not structured data.  So understand that the reason the
manager interface isn't nice to work with isn't that the messages are
a key:value pair, actually this makes it even easier than using XML.
Its not as nice to work with because its not structured uniformly.

If anything the manager interface doesnt need more limitations like
making it specifically xml, what would be cool tho is having it
replaced by a very simple socket interface with a really simple
protocol (even simpler than it is now, possibly binary) with a uniform
structure so that external processes can use it with no issues, that
way you can slap on a soap interface, an xml-rpc interface, json(which
is essentially key:value pairs as a javascript dictionary), DBUS, blah
blah, with no issues at all.

XML is good but lets not get all hyped up and lets use it correctly.

> How hard would it
> be to turn the Manager into an RSS feed if XML were an option? (stupid
> example but you get my idea)
How hard is it now for a particular task, about 20 lines of code, in
less than an hour. Writing any sort of xml proxy to the manager
interface is really trivial for any particular task that is. Not in
general as its not structured data.  So understand that the reason the
manager interface isn't nice to work with isn't that the messages are
a key:value pair, actually this makes it even easier than using XML.
Its not as nice to work with because its not structured uniformly.

If anything the manager interface doesnt need more limitations like
making it specifically xml, what would be cool tho is having it
replaced by a very simple socket interface with a really simple
protocol (even simpler than it is now, possibly binary) with a uniform
structure so that external processes can use it with no issues, that
way you can slap on a soap interface, an xml-rpc interface, json(which
is essentially key:value pairs as a javascript dictionary), DBUS, blah
blah, with no issues at all.

XML is good but lets not get all hyped up and lets use it correctly.
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --

Asterisk-Dev mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev