Hello, I did some tests because i'm interesting to transfer a non stasis bridge to a stasis bridge and i found a strange situation. A call B B answer You have a bridge On my asterisk CLI: xivo*CLI> bridge show b1d8fb21-ec6d-469a-9dde-bb6bfd5618cc Id: b1d8fb21-ec6d-469a-9dde-bb6bfd5618cc Type: basic Technology: simple_bridge Num-Channels: 2 Channel: SIP/tcu9tz-00000032 Channel: SIP/c4i2zd-00000031 Now with swagger UI on bridges section. POST /bridges/b1d8fb21-ec6d-469a-9dde-bb6bfd5618cc with type holding for example. 200 ok On asterisk CLI: xivo*CLI> bridge show b1d8fb21-ec6d-469a-9dde-bb6bfd5618cc Id: b1d8fb21-ec6d-469a-9dde-bb6bfd5618cc Type: stasis Technology: holding_bridge Num-Channels: 0 On swagger UI: DELETE /bridges/b1d8fb21-ec6d-469a-9dde-bb6bfd5618cc 204 ok On asterisk CLI: xivo*CLI> bridge show b1d8fb21-ec6d-469a-9dde-bb6bfd5618cc Bridge 'b1d8fb21-ec6d-469a-9dde-bb6bfd5618cc' not found It looks like strange no ? Is it an issue, why it's possible ? My calls are not hangup, but i loose my bridge. I have another question, is it possible to change a non statis bridge to a stasis bridge ? The only way i found for the moment is using AMI with transfer application to Stasis() dialplan. My point is how can i gain the ARI control on a non stasis bridge ? Thank you. Sylvain
Sylvain Boily wrote:> Hello,Just a note - there's an asterisk-app-dev mailing list[1] which is better suited for these kind of posts.> I did some tests because i'm interesting to transfer a non stasis bridge > to a stasis bridge and i found a strange situation.You can't, you have to move the channels into your Stasis application using AMI and create a new bridge like you state below. Only one entity (be it an existing application like app_dial, or an external application written using ARI) can have absolute control over a bridge or else both could get really confused as each manipulates things.> > A call B > B answer > > You have a bridge > > On my asterisk CLI: > > xivo*CLI> bridge show b1d8fb21-ec6d-469a-9dde-bb6bfd5618cc > Id: b1d8fb21-ec6d-469a-9dde-bb6bfd5618cc > Type: basic > Technology: simple_bridge > Num-Channels: 2 > Channel: SIP/tcu9tz-00000032 > Channel: SIP/c4i2zd-00000031 > > Now with swagger UI on bridges section. > > POST /bridges/b1d8fb21-ec6d-469a-9dde-bb6bfd5618cc with type holding for > example. > > 200 ok > > On asterisk CLI: > > xivo*CLI> bridge show b1d8fb21-ec6d-469a-9dde-bb6bfd5618cc > Id: b1d8fb21-ec6d-469a-9dde-bb6bfd5618cc > Type: stasis > Technology: holding_bridge > Num-Channels: 0 > > On swagger UI: > > DELETE /bridges/b1d8fb21-ec6d-469a-9dde-bb6bfd5618cc > > 204 ok > > On asterisk CLI: > > xivo*CLI> bridge show b1d8fb21-ec6d-469a-9dde-bb6bfd5618cc > Bridge 'b1d8fb21-ec6d-469a-9dde-bb6bfd5618cc' not foundI'd suggest filing an issue for this. You shouldn't be able to create a bridge from ARI with an id of one that already exists. [1] http://lists.digium.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-app-dev -- Joshua Colp Digium, Inc. | Senior Software Developer 445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - US Check us out at: www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org
Le 2015-12-15 15:25, Joshua Colp a ?crit :> Sylvain Boily wrote: >> Hello, > > Just a note - there's an asterisk-app-dev mailing list[1] which is > better suited for these kind of posts.Ok> >> I did some tests because i'm interesting to transfer a non stasis bridge >> to a stasis bridge and i found a strange situation. > > You can't, you have to move the channels into your Stasis application > using AMI and create a new bridge like you state below. Only one > entity (be it an existing application like app_dial, or an external > application written using ARI) can have absolute control over a bridge > or else both could get really confused as each manipulates things.Ok, that i understood. What do you think about enhancing AMI to have a command for moving channels to a stasis application ? Is it possible ? For the moment i'm using AMI Transfer and dialplan Stasis().> > I'd suggest filing an issue for this. You shouldn't be able to create > a bridge from ARI with an id of one that already exists. >Ok Sylvain