How Does Extensions.lua Compares To Extensions.conf ?
Hello,
How does extensions.lua compares to extensions.conf or extensions.ael on stability, performance and features ?
Would you recommand extensions.lua as an easy/easier way to access memcached, redis or equivalent ?
Thoughs ? Comments ?
Regards
6 thoughts on - How Does Extensions.lua Compares To Extensions.conf ?
The lack of replies should give you your answer. Extensions AEL and LUA don’t get much action these days, I’m sure there are a few people that use them but extensions.conf has way more code coverage from a testing POV.
Your better off using AGI if you want to leverage redis or memcached.
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Paul Belanger
Cool, you are in the minor on that one. My only caution about using them about be the lack of support if you had issues.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Paul Belanger
I’m a 1.2 Luddite, but…
I used AEL for a system a couple of years ago.
Even suffering through some syntactical inconsistencies and parsing bugs and a general lack of meaningful error messages when loading the dialplan, the result was a much more maintainable system.
It was very refreshing being able to program in a ‘real’ programming language rather than something reminiscent of a deck of punch cards 🙂
We use extensions.conf, AEL, and AGI scripts. Debugging AEL scripts can be….interesting, but worth it. I also like being able to program in a real language
Our extensions.conf handles the incoming call initially, an AGI is then run which talks to the database and does the heavy lifting. It sets a bunch of channel variables and passes control back to the dialplan, in case something custom needs to be done. An AEL script with a few macros in it does the actual dialing and is called after the custom stuff is done. The AEL scripts are seldom changed.
I’m not a fan of dialing from inside AGIs due to a traumatic experience trying that back in the 0.65 / 1.2 eras, all of that is handled in the AEL script.
—–Original Message—