I have reviewed the proposals (i.e. 1(A), 1(B) and 2) and been following all the discussion on the mailing list in the last week and a half. I realize that there are still open issues being discussed, but I vote for the general direction of 1(A). I feel that it is more intuitive to have methods on the message classes, as opposed to a separate class that takes in a message as argument.There are lot of arguments for and against using marker interface pattern as against providing a meta data. In our case, I don't think marker interfaces
A few other points:
- To Binod's point about too many method specific interfaces without methods. (Or only some method specific interfaces), I think it is actually nice to define a hierarchy of interface classes for requests and responses for all SIP methods, even if most interfaces may not declare any methods. This follows the marker interface pattern and should makes application code more type-safe. Otherwise programmers need to do msg.getMethod().equals("INVITE") etc.
- we need to be careful about the term 'pending'. In JSR289 'pending' is used to mean 'un-committed', where 'committed' is defined in sec 5.2. I believe in both proposals 1 and 2 the term pending means different things, i.e. the corresponding transaction is not terminated yet.
On Thursday 06 June 2013 04:02 PM, Binod wrote:
Attendees : Brian, Eric, George, Keith, Tom, Binod (Sorry, if I missed
Keith's original proposal has now evolved to two different set of
1. See Keith's e-mail with latest PDF. The approach in this proposal
create a new interface called SipInviteRequest to hold pending responses
for invite. From yesterday's discussion, seems like there are two further
paths on this proposal.
(A) Define interfaces for methods also. For example,
SipInviteResponse etc. This would make the API consistent across all
(B) Move the new methods to SipServletRequest iteself.
2. The PendingMessages interface holds all the pending messages. See
changes to javadoc. I updated it with the comments from the discussion
Please let the EG know which path you would like to take for
standardizing this functionality. ?
Re: B2B/PendingMessage Discussion/ Meeting notes