logo       

RE: Questions, comments on some CCXML operations: msg#00030

web.voice

Subject: RE: Questions, comments on some CCXML operations

Much the same issue was brought up before some months ago, and the same reply
was given. What are the odds we'll get a real response?

-----Original Message-----
From: www-voice-request@xxxxxx on behalf of RJ Auburn
Sent: Mon 9/20/2004 7:12 AM
To: Werner Dittmann; www-voice@xxxxxxx
Cc:
Subject: Re: Questions, comments on some CCXML operations




Werner,

Thanks for the comment on CCXML. The CCXML group will discuses these
comments in a upcoming meeting and see what we can do.

Thanks for the feedback,

RJ


On 09/17/2004 11:56, "Werner Dittmann" <Werner.Dittmann@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>
> All,
>
> the asynchronous operations <createccxml>, <createcall>,
> <dialogprepare>, <dialogstart>, and <createconference> define an ECMA
> lefthand-side expression that will receive the respective id of the
> newly created object. The same id is returned in the associacted
> event, e.g. ccxml.created. What is the rational behind this?
>
> Because all actions are asynchronous it is not guaranteed that they
> will succeed and having an id before the operation was finished
> successfully, i.e. the opject really created, does not make sense.
>
> Providing the id only with an event that indicates a success makes it
> easier to implementent a CCXML interpeter because no "look-ahead"
> generation of ids is necessary.
>
> In addition, it is sometimes appropriate to defer the generation of
an
> id until the object is really created and activated by the
> platform. This is the case at least for some call control protocols,
> e.g. SIP, ISUP, etc. where the connectionid identifies the created
> conection.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Regards,
> Werner
>
>
>

---
RJ Auburn
CTO, Voxeo Corporation
tel:+1-407-418-1800




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Google Custom Search

News | FAQ | advertise