November 2007 - h323plus - lists.packetizer.com

Does H323plus support H.235
by Bian 27 Nov '07

27 Nov '07

ToAll, Does anyone have experience implementing H.235 AES using h.323plus? Where can I begin? Regrads, Bian ___________________________________________________________ @yahoo.cn 新域名、无限量，快来抢注！ http://mail.yahoo.cn/

1 0

Re: [h323plus] Migration to ANSI bool in PTLib
by Craig Southeren 27 Nov '07

27 Nov '07

Simon Horne wrote: > To All > > I had requested slightly more time but alas :( > > h323plus (in conjunction with GnuGk) will migrate over the next week or so. > If you are using the PTLIB TRUNK please compile for backward compatibility > until Jan and I have completed h323plus and GnuGk translation. To assist, we'll try not to do much to PTLib until you are migrated. This means the development snapshot will be good for you to use. > Our apologies for not be able to co-ordinate this a little better. Thanks for your efforts - it is much appreciated :) Craig ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Craig Southeren Post Increment – VoIP Consulting and Software craigs(a)postincrement.com.au www.postincrement.com.au Phone: +61 243654666 ICQ: #86852844 Fax: +61 243656905 MSN: craig_southeren(a)hotmail.com Mobile: +61 417231046 Jabber: craigs(a)jabber.org "Science is the poetry of reality." Richard Dawkins

1 1

Migration to ANSI bool in PTLib
by Craig Southeren 27 Nov '07

27 Nov '07

To all, As described previously, PTLib is about to migrate the internal type PBoolean the ANSI type "bool". This will affect all member functions that use BOOL parameters and are overrides of standard PTLib and Opal functions. The reasons for this are to improve efficiency, and to improve compatibility with other libraries. Backwards compatibility is supported as follows: - The Unix configure option "--disable-ansi-bool" will enable the old "int BOOL" behaviour - The presence of the symbol P_USE_STANDARD_CXX_BOOL will indicate the new ANSI bool is being used, while the presence of P_USE_INTEGER_BOOL will indicate the old "int BOOL" behavior is in effect. - The new type PBoolean is be defined as either "bool" or "int" as required. The plan for migration to the new code will be in two steps: 1. A snapshot of the SVN current development trunk will be created, that does not include the PBoolean changes (PTLib 2.1.1/Opal 3.1.1) 2. We will then merge the PBoolean changes into the SVN head. This will be (PTLib 2.1.2/Opal 3.1.2) We'd like to do this in the next few days so we can move on to other pressing merge issues (yes Hannes - we are desperate to get your changes in! :) Please email opalvoip-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net if you have any further questions or issues. Craig

1 0

Re: [h323plus] Visual Studio Express 2008
by Simon Horne 21 Nov '07

21 Nov '07

Jan I have CC'd this to the h323plus list. This is great to have Visual Studio 2008 support. If you get a chance send me the compile errors and will see if we can patch ptlib. :) Simon > -----Original Message----- > From: openh323gk-developer-bounces(a)lists.sourceforge.net > [mailto:openh323gk-developer-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net]On Behalf Of > Jan Willamowius > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 8:03 AM > To: openh323gk-developer(a)lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: [Openh323gk-developer] Visual Studio Express 2008 > > > Hi, > > for all those who want to try the new Express 2008: > I just compiled PWLib 1.12.0, H323Plus (CVS) and GnuGk (CVS) without > any issues. Just follow the instructions for Express 2005 and let 2008 > convert the build project. > > The only problem I ran into was the PWLib detected the TextToSpeech > API, but couldn't compile the PWlib support for it, so I had to > manually disable it. Your milage on this may vary. > > Regards, > Jan > > -- > Jan Willamowius, jan(a)willamowius.de, http://www.gnugk.org/ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________________ > > List: Openh323gk-developer(a)lists.sourceforge.net > Archive: > http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=openh323gk -developer Homepage: http://www.gnugk.org/

2 1

Re: [h323plus] Introducing PBoolean - API change alert!!!
by Jan Willamowius 20 Nov '07

20 Nov '07

Hi, I guess making the change won't be very hard for GnuGk and we've already started using STL wherever possible. The one thing I'm concerend about is to keep backward compatibility with older PWLib releases. Some people use really old OpenH323/PWLib versions to compile GnuGk and would prefer to keep them. Currently we look at the version numbers to see which features are available. So if we can simply define PBoolean back to BOOL for the old releases, I'm fine with the change. If you add config options to change what kind of bool PTLib uses, please give us a config symbol so we can detect what to define PBoolean to. Regards, Jan -- Jan Willamowius, jan(a)willamowius.de, http://www.willamowius.de/

3 3

Improved QoS support in H323plus
by Simon Horne 20 Nov '07

20 Nov '07

To All I have updated QoS support in H323plus. DSCP (Diffserv) is now enabled by default (if compiled with DNS support). Transport QoS is now also negotiated between the parties during the capability exchange with the higher QoS value given precedence over the lower value for both direction media flow. The default values for DSCP are 46 (guaranteed) for audio and 26 (controlled load) for Video. You can change these by calling statics H323AudioCapability::SetDSCPvalue() and H323VideoCapability::SetDSCPvalue() from your application. You can also turn off the feature via a new function H323EndPoint::DisableH245QoS(). Simon No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.0/1137 - Release Date: 2007/11/18 5:15 PM

2 2

More background on changing BOOL to bool
by Craig Southeren 19 Nov '07

19 Nov '07

To all, Here is some background information on the proposed change of BOOL to bool. We're trying to move PTLib closer to the C++ standard, including STL, because that has many advantages. Not only will it reduce the size of the code, and increases compatibility with other libraries, but it will leverage off the enormous investment that other developers have made into the standard libraries and will increase the usefulness of PTLib by making the API less "proprietary" To do this, PTLib will require several changes. None of these will come without pain, but it is my personal opinion that the advantages will outweigh the disadvantages. These changes are: - Change BOOL to bool - Change PString to use std::string in some way - Change PArray to use std::vector, PDictionary to use std::map etc The change from BOOL to bool is probably the biggest change. We're hoping that the rest of the changes can be done transparently, but I think it is inevitable that there will be some API tweaks required. I'd be interested in hearing people's opinions on these thoughts, especially if the general consensus is that it is not worthwhile. Craig ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Craig Southeren Post Increment – VoIP Consulting and Software craigs(a)postincrement.com.au www.postincrement.com.au Phone: +61 243654666 ICQ: #86852844 Fax: +61 243656905 MSN: craig_southeren(a)hotmail.com Mobile: +61 417231046 Jabber: craigs(a)jabber.org "Science is the poetry of reality." Richard Dawkins

3 3

Re: [h323plus] Introducing PBoolean - API change alert!!!
by Simon Horne 19 Nov '07

19 Nov '07

Robert Can you explain exactly in simple english 1. What you have changed. I assume it's changing every BOOL to PBOOLEAN in ptlib? 2. So everyone in every program derived from ptlib/pwlib has to change their program or when they compile against upcoming releases of ptlib their program will no longer function properly. Is that correct? For what benefit? Compile time checks? moving from BOOL to ANSI bool? Though I have always wondered why BOOL was used in place of bool and globally replacing in h323plus is fairly easy however for the community as a whole who have developed complex applications from these libraries it's going to be extremely painful as backward compatibility is broken and worse with C++ virtual they will not even notice it has even occurred until they run the program. Not a very good situation at all. For this reason I STRONGLY STRONGLY recommend you don't make this change. IMHO it is something inherent with pwlib/ptlib and far too painful this late in the game (after 10+ years?) for minimal benefit for everyone involved. But of course, it already has been decided and the community have a week to agree and then it's done. This is what is truely unfortunate. Simon -----Original Message----- From: h323plus-bounces(a)lists.packetizer.com [mailto:h323plus-bounces@lists.packetizer.com]On Behalf Of Robert Jongbloed Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 9:31 AM To: Opalvoip-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net; h323plus(a)lists.packetizer.com Subject: [h323plus] Introducing PBoolean - API change alert!!! If you have written any programs based on PTLib/OpenH323/H323plus/OPAL, please read this, IT'S IMPORTANT!! Adam Butcher from Selex Communications submitted patches a while ago to change BOOL to PBoolean. The reason was so that PBoolean could be defined as the ANSI standard bool type and we get a whole pile of beneficial compile time checks. The process found a couple of places where a function had a BOOL return type but integer (tri-state) values were being returned! Well, Craig and I had thought of this for a while as being a "good thing" to do, but lack of time has always been an issue. Now, as we have been presented with all the hack work, it seems that this is it's time. Of course things are NEVER easy. The change has a nasty API issue that can silently stop user programs from working. It revolves around my #1 pet hate in C++, if you change the signature of a virtual function, overrides silently no longer override the virtual. For example: //------ in the library class OpalXXX { virtual void SomeFunction( PBoolean ); }; //------- in some unchanged dependent code in another application class MyXXX : public OpalXXX { virtual void SomeFunction( BOOL ); }; The function MyXXX::SomeFunction() will not be called as it should be. And the stupid compiler (NONE of the compilers) give any warnings or indication there is an issue. Way back in the preliminary versions of C++ they did have a keyword "override" which would do exactly what we want, error if the base class does not have the function being overridden as virtual. The original designers (Stroustrup et al) took out, for presumably good reasons, though I cannot for the life of me think what! There is even a number proposals, e.g. http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2006/n2108.html, to put a variants of it back and Microsoft have even done so, http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/41w3sh1c.aspx, on their latest compiler. Anyway we have to deal with existing compilers and this problem is really insidious, but we think the gains are worth the pain. And we have provided a work around for people. So, what we need from you guys is please check out the PTLib and OPAL in the branches: https://opalvoip.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/opalvoip/ptlib/branches/Bo oleanChange https://opalvoip.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/opalvoip/opal/branches/Boo leanChange and compile your programs against it. Now by default it will use the ANSI bool form of PBoolean, so any overrides of PTLib or OPAL functions must be changed to use PBoolean instead of BOOL. For those not using MFC, this is really easy, just do a complete search and replace everywhere of BOOL to PBoolean (or better yet, just bool) and that should do the job. Oh, you might like to search and replace TRUE to true and FALSE to false while you are at it, though you don't HAVE to do that. Now, for those that simply do not wish to make these changes, we have a backward compatibility option: use the --disable-ansi-bool option with configure (both Unix and Win32) and PBoolean is defined as BOOL instead of bool. This should (in theory) be 100% compatible with the previous signatures. So no changes to applications based on PTLib need be made. But we need you guys to CHECK THAT THIS IS OK! We are currently proposing to merge it into the trunk on Monday 26th of November, we are happy to extend that if asked, but will not wait forever, the back merging is really painful! P.S. A random note to developers, the PBoolean is only there for backward compatibility. It is recommended that any NEW functions all just use the bool keyword. Use lowercase true and false too. P.P.S. Sorry about all the shouting ... J Robert Jongbloed OPAL/OpenH323 Architect and Co-founder.

2 1

Introducing PBoolean - API change alert!!!
by Robert Jongbloed 19 Nov '07

19 Nov '07

If you have written any programs based on PTLib/OpenH323/H323plus/OPAL, please read this, IT'S IMPORTANT!! Adam Butcher from Selex Communications submitted patches a while ago to change BOOL to PBoolean. The reason was so that PBoolean could be defined as the ANSI standard bool type and we get a whole pile of beneficial compile time checks. The process found a couple of places where a function had a BOOL return type but integer (tri-state) values were being returned! Well, Craig and I had thought of this for a while as being a "good thing" to do, but lack of time has always been an issue. Now, as we have been presented with all the hack work, it seems that this is it's time. Of course things are NEVER easy. The change has a nasty API issue that can silently stop user programs from working. It revolves around my #1 pet hate in C++, if you change the signature of a virtual function, overrides silently no longer override the virtual. For example: //------ in the library class OpalXXX { virtual void SomeFunction( PBoolean ); }; //------- in some unchanged dependent code in another application class MyXXX : public OpalXXX { virtual void SomeFunction( BOOL ); }; The function MyXXX::SomeFunction() will not be called as it should be. And the stupid compiler (NONE of the compilers) give any warnings or indication there is an issue. Way back in the preliminary versions of C++ they did have a keyword "override" which would do exactly what we want, error if the base class does not have the function being overridden as virtual. The original designers (Stroustrup et al) took out, for presumably good reasons, though I cannot for the life of me think what! There is even a number proposals, e.g. http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2006/n2108.html, to put a variants of it back and Microsoft have even done so, http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/41w3sh1c.aspx, on their latest compiler. Anyway we have to deal with existing compilers and this problem is really insidious, but we think the gains are worth the pain. And we have provided a work around for people. So, what we need from you guys is please check out the PTLib and OPAL in the branches: https://opalvoip.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/opalvoip/ptlib/branches/Boolean Change https://opalvoip.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/opalvoip/opal/branches/BooleanC hange and compile your programs against it. Now by default it will use the ANSI bool form of PBoolean, so any overrides of PTLib or OPAL functions must be changed to use PBoolean instead of BOOL. For those not using MFC, this is really easy, just do a complete search and replace everywhere of BOOL to PBoolean (or better yet, just bool) and that should do the job. Oh, you might like to search and replace TRUE to true and FALSE to false while you are at it, though you don't HAVE to do that. Now, for those that simply do not wish to make these changes, we have a backward compatibility option: use the --disable-ansi-bool option with configure (both Unix and Win32) and PBoolean is defined as BOOL instead of bool. This should (in theory) be 100% compatible with the previous signatures. So no changes to applications based on PTLib need be made. But we need you guys to CHECK THAT THIS IS OK! We are currently proposing to merge it into the trunk on Monday 26th of November, we are happy to extend that if asked, but will not wait forever, the back merging is really painful! P.S. A random note to developers, the PBoolean is only there for backward compatibility. It is recommended that any NEW functions all just use the bool keyword. Use lowercase true and false too. P.P.S. Sorry about all the shouting ... J Robert Jongbloed OPAL/OpenH323 Architect and Co-founder.

1 0

OpenAM now available in H323plus CVS
by Simon Horne 18 Nov '07

18 Nov '07

Guys Just a quick note that openAM has now been updated and available in the h323plus CVS. I would like to thank Jan Willamwius for the contribution and hopefully in the not too distant future we can tweak it to provide video voicemail for GnuGk. :-) Simon ----------------------- Simon Horne Principal Maintainer h323plus library www.h323plus.org h323:s.horne@packetizer.com

1 0

Question about interoperability of asterisk and GnuGk
by Giulio Gaio 15 Nov '07

15 Nov '07

Hi, I wonder if is it possible to register Asterisk as an endpoint to openh323 gatekeeper (GnuGk) because i want to merge the feature of an PBX ( asterisk ) in a h323 zone. More precisely, I'm working around an heterogeneous network (it' s a campus' network) in witch to an h323 MCU endpoint had to have the capability to be connected in both: - external PSTN via Cisco Gw users, - internal h323 users registered to GnuGK - user handled by an asterisk PBX. (You can imagine that theese are users from a minor building of the faculty that don't share the LAN of the main building). --- but this point isn't yet clear If some one can help me (Can asterisk register to GnuGK in some way), or tell me this is impossible, Thank you very much. Giulio ___________________________________ L'email della prossima generazione? Puoi averla con la nuova Yahoo! Mail: http://it.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

5 5

Re: [h323plus] [Opalvoip-devel] Custom Video Frame Size
by Simon Horne 14 Nov '07

14 Nov '07

Robert Firstly I would like to thankyou for the fantastic work you did on upgrading the initial Video Plugin work on the openH323_plugins branch. On to this discussion. I asked a specific question on the removal of the frame size constraints in the encoder of the plugin codec. Now I don't want to break anything so from your indepth response about YUV files and SIP exchange example. I will assume its important so I will just leave it as it is for Opal. :-) Regards Simon -----Original Message----- From: h323plus-bounces(a)lists.packetizer.com [mailto:h323plus-bounces@lists.packetizer.com]On Behalf Of Robert Jongbloed Sent: Wednesday, 7 November 2007 2:15 PM To: Opalvoip-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net Cc: 'H323plus' Subject: Re: [h323plus] [Opalvoip-devel] Custom Video Frame Size > -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Horne [mailto:s.horne@packetizer.com] .... > Getting back to the initial question. I want to move forward with > H.239 > support in h323plus so can I remove the fixed frame size constraints > from > the video plugins so the project can move forward or if that's not > recommended then, as I don't want to have different versions of the > video > plugins that break interoperability, can I put in a compiler > directive to > get us out of a pickle? Once these opal architectural glitches are > resolved > then the directive can be removed. I am confused, the underlying system in OPAL has never really had any "fixed size" constraints. There are two OpalMediaOptions for width and height and they can be any value. Now come CODECS can only do fixed sizes, eg H.261, and that was part of the complexity Matthias and I were struggling with. > I really am confused on the codec issues, and the discrete video > sizes with > H.261/H.263 and the generic capabilities etc. The way this is done in > H323plus is to detect the capabilities of the video device at > application > startup via the changes I made in the ptlib videodevice factory which > allows > the device capability list to be exposed without instantaneousing the > device. You use the device capabilities list to determine the maximum > frame > size available for the device so in this way you can detect and > support HD > webcams etc. There is a H323Endpoint function that then goes through > and > removes all the capabilities unsupported for that particular webcam. > Easy! If I am reading this right, you are using the capabilities of the camera, which is used for transmit channels, to determine the H.323 capabilities which controls the RECEIVE channels. Surely the capability should use the VideoOutputDevice? Or is this for transmitVideo capabilities only? Also, but what happens if you have a camera that only reports being able to do 320x240? Not sure this happens much anymore, but older cameras certainly used to. Again, if I am reading what you said right, you would not get H.261 or H.263 at all as they can't do that resolution. > On the OpenVideoChannel function callback the user can then set the > frame > size and fps on the wire. This sets the header height/width fields of > the > YUV420 frame which then goes back into the plugin codec to resize the > codec. > This is how it used to work in OpenH323 and it works just fine. The > problem > you refer to is, I guess, an open Opal issue perhaps?. Given recent events I would be VERY careful about gibes like this. Here is the problem as I see it, library neutral ... Leaving out for the moment the added complexity of requiring symmetric codecs, the receive and transmit video streams are completely independent. Let's start with the receiver; there are three entities at work: Video output device capabilities User/Application preferences Codec fundamentals As a rule most output devices can do any resolution/frame rate, however it is possible with the YUVFile driver to indicate that it MUST be a size, e.g. using the filename "fred_qcif.yuv". The User/Application may also have restrictions, most common is for PDA's where the screen size is such that you want to prevent 4CIF etc. The Codec fundamentals are the most complicated as they may just be a maximum (via profile/level for H.264/MPEG4 and CustomPictureFormat for H.263+) or a set of discrete values as required by H.261 and H.263. The presented capabilities sent to the remote must be derived from the above. I am not presenting a solution yet, just trying to state the problem in as complete a form as possible. For the transmit side we have four entities: Video input device capabilities User/Application preferences Codec fundamentals Remote capabilities So, when selecting our specific video parameters we want to try and get as close to the user preference as possible given the constraints indicated by the other three entities. One more random point: the Codec fundamentals are only known by the plug-in. So, the result of a long discussion with Matthias (and others, but Matthias was the main person) we came up with a first cut solution. To simplify matters an assumption that the video devices can be told to go to any resolution is made. As we have the PColourConverter functionality which (mostly) can do scale/crop as it converts, I think that is fair. Then we introduce the concept of "normalised" OpalMediaOptions and "custom" OpalMediaOptions. The normalised options are things like min/max width/height and the custom options are things like profile/level, or "QCIF MPI". Then two functions are to be added to the plug in to set the options in an instance from normalised to custom, and back from custom to normalised options. In the process the plug-in can also apply any other rules it might have, such as discrete sizes. And here is the sequence that I am stealing from the other thread describing how all the OpalMediaOptions get tweaked as they pass through the system: OK, nothing better than a concrete example: Media format on start up from a H.263 plug-in: Max Frame Width = 1408 Max Frame Height = 1152 Min Frame Width = 144 Min Frame Height = 96 Frame Width = 352 Frame Height = 288 Max Bit Rate = 384000 Target Bit Rate = 384000 Frame Time = 3000 SQCIF MPI = 1 QCIF MPI = 1 CIF MPI = 2 4CIF MPI = 3 16CIF MPI = 4 Annex D = 1 Then the user alters the following: Max Frame Width = 640 Max Frame Height = 480 Frame Width = 320 Frame Height = 240 Max Bit Rate = 128000 Frame Time = 6000 Then just before making a call the above, after user adjustment, is sent to the plug-in "from_normalised_options" function, the plug-in returns: Max Frame Width = 352 Max Frame Height = 288 Min Frame Width = 144 Min Frame Height = 96 Frame Width = 176 Frame Height = 144 Max Bit Rate = 128000 Target Bit Rate = 128000 Frame Time = 6000 SQCIF MPI = 2 QCIF MPI = 2 CIF MPI = 2 4CIF MPI = 5 16CIF MPI = 5 Annex D = 1 Note that as this particular H.263 implementation cannot do custom frame sizes, so all the frame sizes are adjusted appropriately. Some MPI's are set to an illegally large value (required for merging to work) and the new frame rate has made the MPI's that are left change upward. This is encoded to: m=video 5002 RTP/AVP 34 a=rtpmap:34 h263/90000 a=fmtp:34 CIF=2;QCIF=2;SQCIF=2;D=1 The remote replies: m=video 5002 RTP/AVP 34 a=rtpmap:34 h263/90000 a=fmtp:34 CIF=3;4CIF=3 I deliberately tried to be a "rude" UA and return a frame size that was never offered to make sure it all works. OPAL then constructs the following from the SDP: Max Frame Width = 640 Max Frame Height = 480 Min Frame Width = 144 Min Frame Height = 96 Frame Width = 320 Frame Height = 240 Max Bit Rate = 128000 Target Bit Rate = 128000 Frame Time = 6000 SQCIF MPI = 5 QCIF MPI = 5 CIF MPI = 3 4CIF MPI = 3 16CIF MPI = 5 Annex D = 0 Many of the above values are irrelevant at this stage and just inherited from the master format. OPAL then merges the sent options with the received options to get: Max Frame Width = 352 Max Frame Height = 288 Min Frame Width = 144 Min Frame Height = 96 Frame Width = 176 Frame Height = 144 Max Bit Rate = 128000 Target Bit Rate = 128000 Frame Time = 6000 SQCIF MPI = 5 QCIF MPI = 5 CIF MPI = 3 4CIF MPI = 5 16CIF MPI = 5 Annex D = 0 Here the MaxMerge operator adjusts the MPI's, and the AndMerge operator turns off Annex D. This is then passed to the plug-in "to_normalised_options" getting: Max Frame Width = 352 Max Frame Height = 288 Min Frame Width = 352 Min Frame Height = 288 Frame Width = 352 Frame Height = 288 Max Bit Rate = 128000 Target Bit Rate = 128000 Frame Time = 9009 SQCIF MPI = 5 QCIF MPI = 5 CIF MPI = 3 4CIF MPI = 5 16CIF MPI = 5 Annex D = 0 Where the Frame Size settles on its only possible value, and Frame Time gets adjusted to 10fps due to CPI MPI being 3. These options are then sent to the codec using set_codec_options and also merged with the YUV320P options so it can be used by the grabber. Robert Jongbloed OPAL/OpenH323 Architect and Co-founder.

3 2

Asterisk chan_h323 now available supporting H323plus
by Simon Horne 13 Nov '07

13 Nov '07

To All Asterisk chan_h323 has been successfully tested with h323plus and will be migrating their H.323 support from OpenH323 to the h323plus stack. Thanks goes to Vlasis Hatzistavrou for assisting with the migration. (mostly ptlib pprocess issues) Simon ----------------------- Simon Horne Principal Maintainer h323plus library www.h323plus.org h323:s.horne@packetizer.com

1 0

H323plus v1.19.7 (Linux) released
by Simon Horne 13 Nov '07

13 Nov '07

To All A new development release for h323plus for linux is available for download. This version fixes some small compilayion bugs with the H.230 code in the v1.19.6 release. Simon ----------------------- Simon Horne Principal Maintainer h323plus library www.h323plus.org h323:s.horne@packetizer.com

1 0

H323AudioCodec::SetRawDataHeld
by Sébastien Annedouche 12 Nov '07

12 Nov '07

Hi, my question might be stupid but can someone explain why a mutex is used in the SetRawDataHeld method : BOOL H323AudioCodec::SetRawDataHeld(BOOL hold) { PTimedMutex m; m.Wait(50); // wait for 50ms to avoid current locks IsRawDataHeld = hold; m.Wait(50); // wait for 50ms to avoid any further locks return TRUE; } I have another problem concerning codecs. Codecs sleep during read and write (within ReadRaw et WriteRaw) keeping rawChannelMutex locked and they lok it again immediately after signalling. I encouter thread starvations (or at least very long time before getting method called) when I try to call addFilter or SwapChannel on a running codec. This behavior can, for instance, prevent me from holding a call. Does anyone have this same problem ? Thanks for your help, Sebastien

2 5

How PString can be converted into CString
by Jaffar Hussain 09 Nov '07

09 Nov '07

Hi Simon ,Craig and Voip community, How PString can be converted into CString and CString to PString in _UNICODE mode compilation? Any help with example will be ppreciated... Jaffar __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

OpalCall Concept Question
by bxg 07 Nov '07

07 Nov '07

Hi all, I have just read opal code for a while. The concept of OpalCall puzzles me. The OpalCall is not existed in OpenH323 project. It's easy to think OpalCall as a gateway between H.323 and SIP connection, however how does this concept applied to OpenMCU. In the conference environment, How can OpalCall represent a conference or in the other words, how to implement conference using OPAL stack? Can you give me some advice？ Thks. Regards, Bian

3 7

Re: [h323plus] [Opalvoip-devel] [Openh323-devel] opalvoip vs h323plus
by Craig Southeren 07 Nov '07

07 Nov '07

..deleted > >> H323plus has a completely different focus to that of OpalVoIP and is >> designed to undertake advanced H.323 development (hence the plus) and >> unleach the full potential of what H.323 is capable of where are >> OpalVoIP is >> more of a generalist which to date has focused a lot of their >> attention (of >> late) on SIP. Here is a specific question for those people using OpenH323 (and now H323Plus) instead of OPAL. What would have to changed in, or added to, OPAL in order for you to move from OpenH323 (other than all of H.45x and H.46x stuff we are already committed to migrating) ? In other words, if you configure Opal with only H.323 support (which you can do now by running "./configure --disable-sip --disable-iax", what makes it so different from OpenH323 that it is worth splitting our joint efforts and maintaining two codebases? If you can answer this question, I promise that the Opal project will do it's very best to fulfill the requirements so we can all work on one codebase rather than two. Craig ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Craig Southeren Post Increment – VoIP Consulting and Software craigs(a)postincrement.com.au www.postincrement.com.au Phone: +61 243654666 ICQ: #86852844 Fax: +61 243656905 MSN: craig_southeren(a)hotmail.com Mobile: +61 417231046 Jabber: craigs(a)jabber.org "Science is the poetry of reality." Richard Dawkins

5 9

Re: [h323plus] [Opalvoip-devel] Custom Video Frame Size
by Simon Horne 07 Nov '07

07 Nov '07

I have CC'd this to the h323plus list. Robert Getting back to the initial question. I want to move forward with H.239 support in h323plus so can I remove the fixed frame size constraints from the video plugins so the project can move forward or if that's not recommended then, as I don't want to have different versions of the video plugins that break interoperability, can I put in a compiler directive to get us out of a pickle? Once these opal architectural glitches are resolved then the directive can be removed. I really am confused on the codec issues, and the discrete video sizes with H.261/H.263 and the generic capabilities etc. The way this is done in H323plus is to detect the capabilities of the video device at application startup via the changes I made in the ptlib videodevice factory which allows the device capability list to be exposed without instantaneousing the device. You use the device capabilities list to determine the maximum frame size available for the device so in this way you can detect and support HD webcams etc. There is a H323Endpoint function that then goes through and removes all the capabilities unsupported for that particular webcam. Easy! On the OpenVideoChannel function callback the user can then set the frame size and fps on the wire. This sets the header height/width fields of the YUV420 frame which then goes back into the plugin codec to resize the codec. This is how it used to work in OpenH323 and it works just fine. The problem you refer to is, I guess, an open Opal issue perhaps?. The "Extended Video Channel" is different to Hannes work in Opal. ExtendedVideoCapability is a type of Video capability which contains a subset of capabilites designed to be used for the likes of H.239. There is a flag I have added to the codec definitions in the video plugins which marks the codecs to be loaded into this subset group. Hannes's work is on having multiple primary video windows which is not related in H.239. The secondary or "Extended" video capability is opened via a function with sends a H.245 OLC and returns a channel number which you can then use to close the channel. Since each channel has a unique channel number, multiple video windows can be opened/closed on the fly. There is a working example of this in simple in applications directory in the H323plus CVS. This type of concept opens the way to develop more advanced concepts like telepresence where you can allocate 3 or more different video input for each secondary channel. Since all this is done on a secondary video capability, existing interoperability on the primary video is ensured and no existing architectural changes in h323plus are required. Simon -----Original Message----- From: opalvoip-devel-bounces(a)lists.sourceforge.net [mailto:opalvoip-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net]On Behalf Of Robert Jongbloed Sent: Tuesday, 6 November 2007 6:00 AM To: Opalvoip-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Opalvoip-devel] Custom Video Frame Size > -----Original Message----- > From: opalvoip-devel-bounces(a)lists.sourceforge.net [mailto:opalvoip- > devel-bounces(a)lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf Of Simon Horne ... > There was some private discussion a few weeks back on setting custom > video > frame sizes in Opal. I should probably summarise the result of that discussion and post the general list. > Currently looking at the video plugins (H.263 > for > instance) only predefined standard frame sizes are allowed (I added a > few > more BTW :) ). Now with H.239 application sharing that is just not > going to > happen. I can just comment out the frame size checking to allow > custom sizes > into the encoder, and get things to work in H323plus but I thought > I'd check > here before commiting stuff that breaks Opal. :) There is a branch where I started to implement the results of that huge long thread. Unfortunately I found a show stopper with OpalMediaFormat where I needed it to be polymorphic, but all through OPAL and H323plus is it used in such a way that breaks polymorphism, e.g. code like: ... function(const OpalMediaFormat & videoFormat) { OpalMediaFormat newFormat = videoFormat; Which, if videoFormat an instance of OpalVideoFormat, that type is lost in the copy constructor, including the correct virtual functions needed for video. This I need to fix, and soon ... > On a side note honestly I cannot see how to set a custom frame size > in Opal. > Well that's not true, I can see how you can do it, if you know what > the > frame size is in advance but with H.239 the frame size is determined > by the > dimensions of the image capture (of course that changes when you > resize the > window) and also how do you get access to the videoInput device at > creation > to set the window handle for the Input device to grab so it can set > the > capture size in the first place. Maybe someone with more knowledge on > this > topic might be able to assist. :( OK, this sounds like you are talking about changing the size of the transmitted video in mid flight, correct? That is one of the reasons why every internal RTP frame for raw video (of type "YUV420P") has a small structure at the top with x,y,width,height in it. It should be theoretically possible for the video source to change the resolution of the generated video on a frame by frame basis. The code does this now setting the width/height from PVideoInputDevice::GetFrameSize() before handing to codec. Now, your comments do raise an interesting point that is not yet allowed for, and that is how to deal with codecs that inherently only do discrete sizes such as H.261 and H.263. My understanding is all the others H.263+, H.264, MPEG4 part 2, Theora (?) can all do anything so I don't think they are an issue. Not sure how to address this one, first thought is a OpalMediaOption (readonly) which indicates if dynamic resize is possible, if not then something (OpalVideoConverter?) needs to scale/crop the image. More thought needed on that one. > For background in H323plus I created a new function > OpenExtendedVideoChannel() to allow the user access to create and > set, > within the application input device (vidinput_app.h now in ptlib), > the > window handle to capture, then retrieve the application frame size > from the > input device so you can (if necessary) scale the actual frame size on > the > wire. Is an "Extended Video Channel" a similar in concept to what Hannes was doing with his OpalMediaType? The ability to open more than one video channel in a call? > I really would like to get some input on how you can envision this > stuff to > work in opal so when it comes time (or someone has the time) to port > this > stuff it will be a straight forward affair and not either a H.239 > code or > architectural mashup. My experience has been that video is never straightforward, there is always some gotcha there. Especially, resolving the "old way" that H.261 and H.263 use (a million options in H.245) and the "new way" (profile/level) codecs such as MPEG4 and H.264 seem to be doing it now, is proving to be hideous. :-( Robert Jongbloed OPAL/OpenH323 Architect and Co-founder. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Opalvoip-devel mailing list Opalvoip-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opalvoip-devel

3 3

AC_CHECK_FILE "unsuitable" for cross compiling
by Peter Nixon 06 Nov '07

06 Nov '07

Can someone please remove the use of AC_CHECK_FILE from configure.ac as it breaks cross compiling.. See: http://opalvoip.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/opalvoip/opal/trunk/configure.ac… Regards -- Peter Nixon http://peternixon.net/

2 1

Question about new ASN compiler
by Craig Southeren 06 Nov '07

06 Nov '07

To all, Some time ago, an independent group of developers created a new ASN compiler based on the original code provided released by OPAL/OpenH323. This code created by this compiler has been used in several commercial projects that I have been involved in, and it definitely works. The big advantage is that the code created by this compiler is MUCH smaller at run-time that the original OPAL/H.323 code. As in ten times smaller. The big disadvantage is that the code created by this compiler is very different from the code created by the old compiler. The code uses C++ templates heavily, and there is no way to make it look similar. Robert and I have not considered introducing this new compiler to date because of the problems it would cause. But, we would like to hear the opinions of other people about this code. If the general consensus is that people would like to see it used, then we will put in the work to make it happen. If the general consensus is that people do think it is worth the hassle, then we will stop worrying about it :) I've copied this message to both the h323plus and GnuGk lists as this decision has obvious ramifications for both projects Craig ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Craig Southeren Post Increment – VoIP Consulting and Software craigs(a)postincrement.com.au www.postincrement.com.au Phone: +61 243654666 ICQ: #86852844 Fax: +61 243656905 MSN: craig_southeren(a)hotmail.com Mobile: +61 417231046 Jabber: craigs(a)jabber.org "Science is the poetry of reality." Richard Dawkins

6 5

Re: [h323plus] Using H323+ for Asterisk's chan_h323
by Simon Horne 04 Nov '07

04 Nov '07

Plamen GnuGk has been test compiled with h323plus. Your error looks strange as it seems to like the code 2 lines above 656 which is identical . I suggest you look at code to see if you have not accidently modified something particularily look at gk_const.h as well as RasTbl.cxx:658 I have fixed the warning message. Simon -----Original Message----- From: Plamen Petkov [mailto:plamen@bg-tel.com] Sent: Friday, 26 October 2007 2:57 AM To: Simon Horne Subject: Re: [h323plus] Using H323+ for Asterisk's chan_h323 Hello, I try to compile Gnugk with H323plus. That is the result: RasTbl.cxx:658: error: no matching function for call to `H460_FeatureOID::Add(const char[2], H460_FeatureContent)' /root/openh323/include/h460/h4601.h:969: note: candidates are: H460_FeatureParameter& H460_FeatureOID::Add(const PString&, H460_FeatureContent&) RasTbl.cxx: In member function `void CallTable::OnQosMonitoringReport(const PString&, const endptr&, H4609_QosMonitoringReportData&)': RasTbl.cxx:2790: warning: unused variable 'addr' make[1]: *** [obj_linux_x86_r/RasTbl.o] Error 1 Regards: Plamen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Simon Horne" <s.horne(a)packetizer.com> To: <vhatz(a)kinetix.gr>; <h323plus(a)lists.packetizer.com> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 6:44 PM Subject: Re: [h323plus] Using H323+ for Asterisk's chan_h323 > > Vlasis > > I am not sure what chan_h323 looks like but there should be no need to > have > timerChangePipe I think this is a left over from very old code. > > Have a look at simple in the CVS > http://h323plus.cvs.sourceforge.net/h323plus/applications/simple/ > to see how to define the PProcess > > Simon > > -----Original Message----- > From: h323plus-bounces(a)lists.packetizer.com > [mailto:h323plus-bounces@lists.packetizer.com]On Behalf Of Vlasis > Hatzistavrou (KTI) > Sent: Thursday, 25 October 2007 10:36 PM > To: h323plus(a)lists.packetizer.com > Subject: [h323plus] Using H323+ for Asterisk's chan_h323 > > > Hello all, > > I have been trying to compile chan_h323 with H323. It seems that I am > almost done, although I get the following error: > > g++ -DNDEBUG -I../../include -include > ../../include/asterisk/autoconfig.h -fPIC -DP_USE_PRAGMA -D_REENTRANT > -fno-exceptions -Wall -fPIC -DPIC -DNDEBUG > -I/Downloads/h323p/ptlib_v1_12_0/include -DPTRACING > -I/Downloads/h323p/h323plus/include -Os -pipe -felide-constructors > -Wreorder -c ast_h323.cxx -o ast_h323.o > ast_h323.cxx: In destructor `virtual MyProcess::~MyProcess()': > ast_h323.cxx:194: error: `timerChangePipe' was not declared in this scope > make[2]: *** [ast_h323.o] Error 1 > make[1]: *** [h323/libchanh323.a] Error 2 > make: *** [channels] Error 2 > > > I went through the PWLib 1.12.0, and there is no occurrence of > "timerChangePipe". In previous versions of PWLib "timerChangePipe" was > used in quite a few places in the code. > > I googled it, but I still don't know what it does. > > If I comment it out in the destructor MyProcess::~MyProcess() it > compiles, but the channel driver segfaults as soon as it is loaded... > > -- > Best regards, > Vlasis Hatzistavrou. > >

2 7

Re: [h323plus] [Openh323-devel] [Openh323gk-developer] [Opalvoip-devel]opalvoip vs h323plus
by Simon Horne 04 Nov '07

04 Nov '07

Robert Let me clear something up. GnuGk has numerous new features with the h323plus library over the openh323 library including H.350 LDAP, H.341 SNMP and numereous H.460 features including H.460.9 real-time Qos measurements, H.460.followme and the latest H.460 NAT Traversal technology P2Pnat Media and Presence implementation which should be available in the v2.2.8 release. The project is continuing it's evolutionary development just fine without the need for Opal. I wish to caution you on misleading people. Opal currently, as far as I know, has no additional H.323 features over the existing openh323 library (aside the video plugins support) unless I'm mistaken looking at the SVN I can't see anything new?. While h323plus which has been developed over the last 12 months as a branch of openh323 and has a substantial array, as mentioned previously, of new features http://www.h323plus.org/standards/ most of which are not currently available in OpalVoIP. Now, as I said before, you are quite welcome to port any of these ideas to Opal but to infer the latest wizzbang H.323 stuff is in Opal (at least at the moment) is being misleading... I carefully remind you that the decision to fork Opal out of OpenH323 was yours and Craig's decision and you did so with your eyes wide open and the subsequent malee that has ensued as a result is something we will all have to live and deal with. On that note, I strongly suggest, as I hinted before, we bring this discussion to a permanent close. Simon -----Original Message----- From: openh323-devel-bounces(a)lists.sourceforge.net [mailto:openh323-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net]On Behalf Of Robert Jongbloed Sent: Sunday, 4 November 2007 1:44 PM To: 'Discussion on enhancements and development issues with the OpenH323 library' Cc: h323plus(a)lists.packetizer.com; Opalvoip-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Openh323-devel] [Openh323gk-developer] [Opalvoip-devel]opalvoip vs h323plus > -----Original Message----- > From: openh323-devel-bounces(a)lists.sourceforge.net [mailto:openh323- > devel-bounces(a)lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf Of Jan Willamowius .... > The main point for GnuGk is that there is very little to be gained > from > a move to OPAL. Its not that I dislike anything thats in there, we > just > don't need 90% of the framework OPAL provides. .... And that is fine, you can stay with OpenH323. There are two classes of legacy user: ones such as GnuGk for which OpenH323 v1.18 does exactly what they want and they need no more features. Except maybe the odd bug fix, the code is as it is. The second class are people with ongoing application development are in continuous need of the "next new thing" in the feature list. These are the people we were hoping to make OPAL sufficiently attractive, due to its new whiz bang wonder gizmos, to convert to OPAL from OpenH323. Oh, and suppose there is a third class of those who have not yet started their project. They should have no reason not to use OPAL. We don't want them to have a reason. And a major reason for moving OPAL to a its own project was not to "fork" the code, but to reduce the confusion between OpenH323 and OPAL. I will reiterate what I and Craig have been saying all along: we are NOT abandoning OpenH323 completely. We just have not been doing any NEW work there as it is a duplication of effort. It is more akin to Ethereal and Wireshark, Ethereal is what it is at that point of time and all new stuff is in Wireshark. It is not, and never was, intended that this be a true "fork" where A goes it's way and B goes theirs. This is the whole reason why I am so disappointed with the ensuing result. Remember, this whole thread started with someone asking the question "Should I use OpenH323 or OPAL, which is better?", a fair question but one that I did not want anyone to have to ask. Robert Jongbloed OPAL/OpenH323 Architect and Co-founder. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Openh323-devel mailing list Openh323-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openh323-devel

3 2

Re: [h323plus] [Opalvoip-devel] [Openh323-devel][Openh323gk-developer] opalvoip vs h323plus
by Simon Horne 04 Nov '07

04 Nov '07

Robert As I asked before. This discussion is officially closed. Craig and yourself made a decisive decision with full knowledge of the large amount of new work I was currently doing in OpenH323 and the effect that decision would have on numerous other projects such as GnuGk. The result of that decision is something we all have to deal with. Simon -----Original Message----- From: opalvoip-devel-bounces(a)lists.sourceforge.net [mailto:opalvoip-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net]On Behalf Of Robert Jongbloed Sent: Sunday, 4 November 2007 3:25 PM To: 'Discussion on enhancements and development issues with the OpenH323 library' Cc: h323plus(a)lists.packetizer.com; Opalvoip-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Opalvoip-devel] [Openh323-devel][Openh323gk-developer] opalvoip vs h323plus > -----Original Message----- > From: opalvoip-devel-bounces(a)lists.sourceforge.net [mailto:opalvoip- > devel-bounces(a)lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf Of Simon Horne ... > Let me clear something up. GnuGk has numerous new features with the > h323plus > library over the openh323 library including H.350 LDAP, H.341 SNMP > and > numereous H.460 features including H.460.9 real-time Qos > measurements, > H.460.followme and the latest H.460 NAT Traversal technology P2Pnat > Media > and Presence implementation which should be available in the v2.2.8 > release. > The project is continuing it's evolutionary development just fine > without > the need for Opal. OK, that was a misinterpretation by me when Jan said he did not need 90% of OPAL code. I extrapolated that to mean he did not use much of OpenH323 either. And I was unaware that they have been using the "plus" branch, I incorrectly assumed they were on the trunk. > I wish to caution you on misleading people. Oh, now things are getting nasty. When accusations like this happen it is certainly time for the discussion to stop. > Opal currently, as far as > I > know, has no additional H.323 features over the existing openh323 > library > (aside the video plugins support) unless I'm mistaken looking at the > SVN I > can't see anything new?. While h323plus which has been developed over > the > last 12 months as a branch of openh323 and has a substantial array, > as > mentioned previously, of new features > http://www.h323plus.org/standards/ > most of which are not currently available in OpalVoIP. And why are they not in OPAL? Because effort is divided between two libraries. > Now, as I said before, you are quite welcome to port any of these > ideas to > Opal but to infer the latest wizzbang H.323 stuff is in Opal (at > least at > the moment) is being misleading... That is not what I meant. I did not mention OpenH323 features explicitly. And if things had gone the way I had originally envisioned with all new development being in OPAL then this statement would be 100% true. As it is, it is only true for non-H.323 features. > I carefully remind you that the decision to fork Opal out of OpenH323 > was There is that work "fork" again, even though I have tried hard to remove it from perceptions. The real fork happened FOUR YEAR AGO. The move to a different repository is just admin. > On that note, I strongly suggest, as I hinted > before, > we bring this discussion to a permanent close. Agreed. But accusations of deliberately misleading people could not go unanswered. Robert Jongbloed OPAL/OpenH323 Architect and Co-founder. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Opalvoip-devel mailing list Opalvoip-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opalvoip-devel

1 0

Re: [h323plus] [Opalvoip-devel] [Openh323-devel] opalvoip vsh323plus
by Simon Horne 04 Nov '07

04 Nov '07

Peter I certainly don't know what the fuss is about. Opal has already really good H.323 support but you cannot *make* people or *conjole* people to migrate. H.323 is a very low priority these days with a lot of projects and many projects may just want to continue their existing code base then h323plus will do that (aka Asterisk (chan_h323),GnuGk etc), others like you are indicating might want to migrate to opal to include SIP or they might just go off and get any one of the dozens and dozens of quality SIP stacks out there. There are others who are using their own SIP stack who just want to add a H.323 stack which might be opal or h323plus or even ooh323. h323plus exists because there is a need of it, all the new work in h323plus is MPL 1.1 so you don't have to worry about licensing issues, want MPL ok, what GPL ok too, just go cherry pick what you want and leave whatever you don't, I'm not fussy. If you want a bit of support for it, then I'm willing to assist with direct enquiries. If you don't think any of it's relevent then forget it even exists and just use whatever you are using. But saying I should do this and that.... Sure everyone wants SIP so go use openser or the dozens of other quality SIP stacks, if you also need H.323 support use Asterisk or FreeSwitch or YATE or this little great project called Opal. Opal is a tiny small fish in a huge ocean. How is me moving to Opal going to change anything except cut off H.323 support for some of the bigger open source projects which relied on OpenH323 for there support, sure they can move to opal but honestly they'll probably just let (like they have been doing) their H.323 support stagnate. Just as with Asterisk and GnuGK I'm happy in assisting updating existing codebases from openh323 to h323plus. Easy, we went though the process last week with both projects. H323plus is meant to be project neutral (anyone can use it), it's a drop in replacement for openh323 and I still intend (where possible) to be highly compatible with opal so if your not ready to migrate then h323plus or cannot see a business case to do it, then it is there until you decide to (if ever) to migrate. You can pull out any of the new code and drop it straight into opal, I certainly will not be standing in anybodies way. With respect to any other projects that may occur they will be the same format so they too will be a neutral stand alone project library which probably be more suited to the asterisk channel type model rather than the more integrated Opal model. I really want to bring this whole discussion to an end. For the majority of people it has little relevence. For the rest, it is as it is. let's move on. Simon -----Original Message----- From: opalvoip-devel-bounces(a)lists.sourceforge.net [mailto:opalvoip-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net]On Behalf Of Peter Nixon Sent: Saturday, 3 November 2007 11:13 PM To: opalvoip-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net Cc: h323plus(a)lists.packetizer.com; GNU Gatekeeper Developer; Discussion on enhancements and development issues with the OpenH323 library Subject: Re: [Opalvoip-devel] [Openh323-devel] [h323plus] opalvoip vsh323plus On Sat 03 Nov 2007, Peter Robinson wrote: > Hi All, > > I've been a user of openh323/opal and on the mailings lists since very > early on when gnomemeeting was in the early 0.x releases and have > watched it all evolve, even contributing minor patches and testing on > ocasion. > > There are a number of things that disurb me about this whole "we've > been orphaned" deal. > > OPAL as it stands has been in development for years, it was > essentially openh323 version 2. Just like gnomemeeting was renamed to > ekiga to reflect the fact that it wasn't just aimed solely at gnome, > openh323's name was changed to reflect the fact that it didn't just > support h323, and as a result was essentially version 2. It was > advertised as such for years. > > Simon there is certainly currently more development of the SIP side of > opal at the moment but I see that is the case for 2 reasons. firstly > the H323 support was very stable and established, and secondly the > people doing the H323 development was being done one openh323. The > OPAL H323 side of things wouldn't stagnate as long as there's > developers. And if you and everyone else were to develop on openh323 > version 2 (OPAL) there wouldn't be missing features because you'd only > have to do the work once. And the only reason the H323 features would > stagnate is if the devs working on it and the maintainers of the H323 > portion of the code (you and others) moved onto other things. That > would give everyone better features on all three protocols currently > supported... and any others that come along. > > I'm sure if the opal project had remained named openh323 and called v2 > with new apis when they added sip support and later renamed there > wouldn't be this disparate uncessary separation and code divergence > and H323 would get nice features like the latest codecs developed by > craig, robert and co and SIP would get some of the great features you > and others develop for openh323 with very little effort. > > This community is too small for all the in fighting that I'm seen > between all the various developers over the years. Way more than a lot > of the other projects I follow, I was just reading through this thread over my Saturday morning coffee and thought I should write a reply. Then I got this this email which very nicely sumarises almost everything I wanted to say. I do have one thing to add however. I have known both Simon and Craig (and the gnugk and ekiga people) for several years now and have had the pleasure of being involved in some spirited face to face discussions over that time. I respect you all and consider you all friends. Simon, with that caveat, I would like to say that I think it is a good thing for h323plus to exist given the state of the openh323 "project" but I heartily wish that its goal was more of a "maintenence mode" project than an actively developed alternative to OPAL. I have heard your reasons for continuing development on openh323/h323plus instead of OPAL several times before and I have to say that I was never fully convinced, however recent events have made me ever less sure. Three months, I made the transition from owner of my own company, to a new position as RnD Director for a VoIP CPE vendor. This has given me a different perspective on things, given that I had always been involved in the "large" side of VoIP deployments where you have gigabytes of disk space and ram and a very different development environment, time to market requirements and market realities. The fact is, despite incompatibilities, functionality gaps and all wisdom to the contrary, SIP is the current market standard for VoIP CPEs. If I told my CEO that I wanted to build a H.323 only CPE he would tell me to reconsider, or reconsider my position at the company. On the other hand, if I can build a SIP device, then deliver H.323 functionality practically for "free" by using OPAL then I can build either an "advanced" model with both SIP and H.323 support (It would cost more due to the required flash and ram increase), or an alternate H.323 firmware for the "standard" device. This, as H.323 proponent, is good for you, and this is a major reason for me to pick OPAL as the stack to develop on, otherwise I would just as likely pick one of the many other very good open source SIP stacks available, and I would never even consider doing the work to develop completely independent H.323 support using h323plus. Please spend a moment to consider "new" users like my company, and not only the temporary difficulties that some old users (like gnugk for example) would face porting from openh323 to opal. The VoIP industry is far from done, and as you know, there are new protocols coming out like AMS and others which I hope one day will also be available as part of OPAL also. I think the decision to do new development in h323plus is a little short sighted, because it makes using your wonderfull new features (and I really mean that) difficult for new VoIP developers due to the hurdle of learning and using another library for H.323 in addition to whatever library they already use for SIP (Or IAX or AMS or whatever), and the even bigger hurdle of deciding to add H.323 support in the first place! Consider also, what you will do when AMS is released.. You will at some point outgrow the existing openh323 design and API and be forced to refactor things at which point you will likely end up with something a lot like OPAL :-) Please, consider doing your future h323 development on OPAL! I really believe that you will end up with a lot more people using your code (and H.323) in the long term. -- Peter Nixon http://peternixon.net/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Opalvoip-devel mailing list Opalvoip-devel(a)lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opalvoip-devel

2 1