On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 1:30 PM, Ruud Klaver <ruud at ag-projects.com> wrote: > > thanks for bumping up the thread. I haven't looked at it in detail, but so >> far it looks simple and straightforward indeed. Couple of things are not >> clear though. So the reinvite callback will be called instead of >> on_rx_offer(), which means that the application has to manage SDP >> negotiation itself outside on_media_update() framework? (Note: I might be >> talking rubish here). >> > > Well, thanks for looking over the patch. Basically the code flow will be > the same for responding to an initial INVITE as for a re-INVITE. What I'm > doing right now is calling pjsip_inv_answer() with the SDP for the response > as an argument, then pjsip_inv_send_msg(). For both cases this uses the SDP > negotiation framework, and indeed after responding to a re-INVITE, the > on_media_update() callback will be called with the result of the > negotiation, just as for the original INVITE. > > Okay, I think I got a clearer picture now. So if the app doesn't implement on_rx_reinvite() callback, this is the flow when a re-INVITE is received: - on_rx_offer() is called - app calls pjsip_inv_set_sdp_answer() inside the callback - pjsip negotiates the SDP, and calls on_media_update() callback - pjsip sends 200/OK response automatically with the negotiated answer When the callback is implemented, the flow changes: - on_rx_reinvite() is called - app calls pjsip_inv_answer() with SDP initial answer - pjsip negotiates the SDP and calls on_media_update() callback - app calls pjsip_inv_send_msg() with the negotiated answer I'm hesitating a bit because of the flow changes, but this looks reasonable and I can't see any alternatives either, and you've done good job with the doxygen comments which should explain this flow change. >> Also what about UPDATE? :) >> > > Ah, good question. I spent some time thinking about this when making the > change to the code, but in the end this functionality is not required for > UPDATE, as it requires and immediate response according to the RFC. This is > why, for an incoming UPDATE, on_rx_offer() is still called. > > You're right. Right I think I can take this on board. Last but not least, since this is quite a significant piece of code, would you mind following up http://trac.pjsip.org/repos/wiki/ContributionAgreement? It's one of the thing that we have to do unfortunately. :) thanks Benny -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.pjsip.org/pipermail/pjsip_lists.pjsip.org/attachments/20090119/9df8f987/attachment.html>
