On 5/14/13 2:29 AM, Alex Balashov wrote:
Daniel,
Thank you for your help. FYI, stopping my use of append_branch()
everywhere solved the problem. I was unaware that it had become an
essentially deprecated requirement.
it was deprecated but should have stayed harmless. Do you touch anything
Daniel,
Thank you for your help. FYI, stopping my use of append_branch()
everywhere solved the problem. I was unaware that it had become an
essentially deprecated requirement.
Thanks again!
-- Alex
--
Alex Balashov - Principal
Evariste Systems LLC
235 E Ponce de Leon Ave
Suite 106
Decatur
On 5/13/13 4:47 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
On 05/13/2013 10:45 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
append_branch() is not needed anymore (for couple of releases, actually,
being added in one of the 3.x releases), but should be harmless unless
you do other changes of r-uri/dst-uri after append_br
On 05/13/2013 10:45 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
append_branch() is not needed anymore (for couple of releases, actually,
being added in one of the 3.x releases), but should be harmless unless
you do other changes of r-uri/dst-uri after append_branch(). Can you try
without append branch?
On 5/13/13 4:38 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
On 05/13/2013 09:30 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
Just to understand exactly:
A calls B
B redirects to C and is captured by proxy
then from proxy you have two parallel outgoing branches to C?
How you take the address of C and create the branch?
On 05/13/2013 09:30 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
Just to understand exactly:
A calls B
B redirects to C and is captured by proxy
then from proxy you have two parallel outgoing branches to C?
How you take the address of C and create the branch? uac_redirect or
other script functions?
Y
Just to understand exactly:
A calls B
B redirects to C and is captured by proxy
then from proxy you have two parallel outgoing branches to C?
How you take the address of C and create the branch? uac_redirect or
other script functions?
Cheers,
Daniel
On 5/13/13 3:26 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
Yes, they are identical in every way except for the .1 and .2 branch IDs.
Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I don't recall any change in this aspect, are the two branches going to
>
>same destination?
>
>Cheers,
>Daniel
>
>On 5/13/13 2:43 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Has so
Hello,
I don't recall any change in this aspect, are the two branches going to
same destination?
Cheers,
Daniel
On 5/13/13 2:43 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
Hello,
Has something changed about default forking behaviour in >= 4.0?
I have a scenario where INVITEs processed by the proxy first hit
