Re: API simplification scope
- From: Thomas Leseney <
- Subject: Re: API simplification scope
- Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:01:23 +0200
#2 seems reasonable to me. As far as we are concerned, I am also more
interested in SIP oriented features than too much J2EE stuff.
#3 is fine but I think that this belongs to the application domain (and
another JSR or probably no standardization at all).
Le 17 sept. 2012 à 07:22, Binod
a écrit :
> 1 and 2 in your list closely follows the option
> 2 that we are voting now.
> For others, could you please file an issue each in the
> issue tracker so that they can be tracked better?
> On Saturday 15 September 2012 07:07 AM, Wei Chen wrote:
>> Here is my wish list (probably not just simplification)
>> 1. Better modeling on B2BUA to make it as easy as Proxy.
>> 2. More pluggable to add utilities/services
>> 3. More 3GPP aware, e.g. ISC interface support
>> 4. Websocket and WebRTC integration will be very interesting. This probably
>> will attract more eyeballs on the market than anything else.
>> 5. Other SIP extension support, such as session timer.
>> Some of the J2EE stuff is good but I prefer not drag too much J2EE stuff
>> High level framework should be built on top of servlet model, I think.
>> - Wei Chen
>> On 9/13/12 2:35 AM, "Binod"
>>> Here are the options proposed in yesterday's meeting for
>>> simplifying the SIP Servlet API.
>>> 1. Small Changes :
>>> Make incremental changes to the apis. Eg: Add more methods
>>> to existing interfaces like B2BUahelper etc. Do nothing more.
>>> 2. Big Changes:
>>> - Utilize Java EE 6 and 7 features to simplify the programming
>>> - Eg: Define JCDI custom scopes like SipSessionScoped or
>>> SipApplicationSessionScoped, Use JCDI @Observes to listen
>>> to SIP messages, Use AsyncContext of Servlet 3.0 for SIP etc.
>>> - Make the API more pluggable to add utilities/services in a
>>> generic way. We only have B2BUaHelper now.
>>> 3. Huge Changes:
>>> - Standardize high level communication services like call control,
>>> Instant Messaging and Presence.
>>> Please reply with your opinion. Also note that, we are only defining
>>> the scope for now.