Re: B2B/PendingMessage Discussion/ Meeting notes
- From: Jonas Borjesson <
- Subject: Re: B2B/PendingMessage Discussion/ Meeting notes
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:46:53 -0700
+1 for 1A
Also replied with a longer answer on the original B2B discussion...
On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:34 AM, George Vagenas
> I am more for the A proposal, define interfaces for methods. I think it will
> provide more flexibility over the B proposal.
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Binod
>> 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 is to
>> create a new interface called SipInviteRequest to hold pending
>> for invite. From yesterday's discussion, seems like there are two
>> paths on this proposal.
>> (A) Define interfaces for methods also. For example,
>> SipRegisterRequest, SipAckRequest,
>> SipInviteResponse etc. This would make the API consistent across
>> all the methods.
>> (B) Move the new methods to SipServletRequest iteself.
>> 2. The PendingMessages interface holds all the pending messages. See the
>> 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. ?