Skip to main content

Re: isInternalSipURI method

  • From: Wei Chen < >
  • To: < >
  • Subject: Re: isInternalSipURI method
  • Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:24:53 -0800

+1 

On 2/27/14, 6:39 AM, "Nitzan Nissim" 
< >
 wrote:

>
>
>I am also in favor of SIPURI.isInternal()
>
>Thanks,
>Nitzan
>
>
>
>
>From:  "Binod PG" 
>< >
>To:    Eric Cheung 
>< >,
>            
> 
>            
> < >,
>Date:  27/02/2014 03:44 PM
>Subject:       Re: isInternalSipURI method
>
>
>
>I prefer SIPURI.isInternal as well.
>
>I will let Keith explain why inInternal should not be in SIPURI. I might
>be
>misrepresenting his concerns.
>
>- Binod.
>
>
>
>------ Original message ------
>From: Eric Cheung
>Date: 27/02/2014 19:05
>To: 
> ;
>Subject:Re: isInternalSipURI method
>
>I vote for SipURI.isInternal().
>
>I am not sure why you wrote this method does not represent the content
>of the SipURI. Doesn't the value returned depend on the host, port, and
>maybe maddr fields of the SipURI?
>
>Thanks
>Eric
>
>
>On 2/27/14 5:54 AM, Binod wrote:
>> In the AR proposal, Keith has a suggestion to add a method to check
>whether
>> a SIP URI is addressed to the container. After yesterday's discussion,
>> we came down
>> to two options for this API. Would like to know EG's preference on one
>> way or other.
>>
>> 1. SipFactory.isInternalSipURI(SipURI uri) : Note that SipFactory is a
>> factory class and
>> all other the methods are createXXX. This method does not do a factory
>> operation.
>>
>> 2. SipURI.isInternal() : Note that unlike other methods in the SipURI
>> this method does not
>> represent the content of the SipURI.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Binod.
>
>
>
>




isInternalSipURI method

Binod 02/27/2014

Re: isInternalSipURI method

Eric Cheung 02/27/2014

<Possible follow-up(s)>

Re: isInternalSipURI method

Binod PG 02/27/2014

Re: isInternalSipURI method

Nitzan Nissim 02/27/2014

Re: isInternalSipURI method

Wei Chen 02/28/2014

Re: isInternalSipURI method

Keith Lewis 02/28/2014
 
 
Close
loading
Please Confirm
Close