Paul Belanger wrote: > On to the next topic :D > > So, Josh has a patch up on reviewboard[1] that adds indication support > to /channels. After looking at the patch, it looks like we 2 basic > ways of controlling a channel with /channel/:id > > Either you can use: > > /answer > /hold > > or you can use: > > /indicate?name=busy > > For the sake consistency I'd like to see us pick one. I can go either > way, but the more I think about it > > /indicate?name=answer > /indicate?name=hold > /indicate?name=busy > > would give us a cleaner API for channels. > > Thoughts? I agree that the hold stuff should go into indicate but I'm torn on moving answer there because having it separate makes the API more approachable by non-telephony developers. They probably don't know about indications and may not even ever need to. They do know what answer is though right off the bat. (That's personal preference, as I favor a balance of clean/approachable/logical when it comes to API design). -- Joshua Colp Digium, Inc. | Senior Software Developer 445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA Check us out at: www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org
