That makes sense! At the end of the day, I should only be getting information I can do something about, by default. And yes, I agree that it makes sense to incorporate some options for the filtering too. Ben From: asterisk-app-dev-bounces at lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-app-dev-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Kinsey Moore Sent: 23 October 2013 22:06 To: Asterisk Application Development discussion Subject: ARI Global Data Accessibility Changes Hello App Developers, We have been thinking about what information is exposed via the ARI requests for lists of channels (GET /ari/channels) and bridges (GET /ari/bridges). Currently, these requests return all information about any channel or bridge in the system. As an example, imagine you have channels SIP/Alice and SIP/Bob in the Stasis() application being bridged by ARI-created bridge Foo. In the same system, you also have channels SIP/Charlie and SIP/David being bridged by Dial()-created bridge DialBridge. When you GET /ari/channels, you will receive: [ { "name": "SIP/Alice", ... }, { "name": "SIP/Bob", ... }, { "name": "SIP/Charlie", ... }, { "name": "SIP/David", ... } ] When you GET /ari/bridges, you will receive: [ { "id": "Foo", ... }, { "id": "DialBridge", ... } ] This situation is non-ideal since channels SIP/Charlie and SIP/David and bridge DialBridge can not be acted upon via ARI. We propose limiting these queries to channels and bridges which ARI can affect. In this case, the /ari/channels query would return: [ { "name": "SIP/Alice", ... }, { "name": "SIP/Bob", ... } ] The /ari/bridges query would return: [ { "id": "Foo", ... } ] The rework would also include an optional filter parameter for ARI user or Stasis application to increase the available granularity. Kinsey Moore Digium, Inc. | Software Developer 445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - US -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-app-dev/attachments/20131024/65cf1250/attachment-0001.html>
