On 13 Sep 2007, at 16:46, Sergio Garcia wrote: > > > > ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- > From: Tilghman Lesher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Asterisk Developers Mailing List <asterisk- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:53:14 -0500 > >> On Thursday 13 September 2007 04:52:20 Klaus Darilion wrote: >>> Russell Bryant schrieb: >>>> Klaus Darilion wrote: >>>>> Thus, why do we have a AST_FRAME_IMAGE? Why is IMAGE not >>>>> treated as >>>>> VOICE? Obviously because Asterisk would transcode and the image is >>>>> broken - the same reason why I like AST_FRAME_DIGITAL. >>>> >>>> I don't think that comparing IMAGE to DIGITAL is a valid >>>> comparison. I >>>> can look at the image in an IMAGE frame. I can listen to the >>>> audio in a >>>> VOICE frame. But what about DIGITAL? How is Asterisk supposed to >>>> interpret a DIGITAL frame? >>> >>> That's the whole point - it should not interpret it at all. >> >> In that case, you should not queue the frame to Asterisk. >> Period. If you are >> telling me that Asterisk should not know anything about the >> contents, then >> it will not handle that frame for any reason whatsoever. > > Sorry, to be rude.. but how the f*ck are you going to transfer the > frame if you > don't queue it??? Does asterisk allows native bridging between > different channels??
Reinvite? - send the RTP stream from endpoint to endpoint ? > >> >> I don't think, however, that that is what you want. You want, >> essentially, >> Asterisk to become a carrier of proprietary information that it >> just blindly >> passes on to whatever is on the other side. That does not jibe >> with the >> model of ANY of the existing channel drivers in Asterisk today. >> EVERYTHING >> must know _what_ it is that it is carrying, in order to properly >> queue it to >> the other side. We don't support unknown codecs, we don't support >> unknown >> video types, and we certainly do not support "here's this packet >> of unknown >> information, just pass it blindly". >> >> Asterisk is an intelligent application, and you're trying to treat >> it like a >> dumb pipe. > > That's the problem, core pbx asterisk should be DUMB, the > endopoints should know what to > do with the formats. It's something silly to have to patch asterisk > to add a new > codec or just a video format!!! No it isn't. If you want a dumb engine, use something like SER. Asterisk's use-case is where you want features - voicemail, IVR, meetme, monitoring or joining incompatible technologies eg: chan_skinny->chan_bluetooth without batting an eyelid. Tim. _______________________________________________ Sign up now for AstriCon 2007! September 25-28th. http://www.astricon.net/ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-dev mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
