Hannes I completely understand your point and from our offlist discussions I have been very supportive of getting some of these ideas like the a common H.460 framework base and H.239 into Opal. It would be good to have these kind of H.460 features like NAT and also the myriad of other H.460 extensions like text messaging (h460.tm), follow me, click to call, presence (h460.presence in development with PacPhone and GnuGk) which are available in h323plus into Opal. I very much look forward to that close working relationship into the future. Simon -----Original Message----- From: opalvoip-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net [mailto:opalvoip-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net]On Behalf Of Hannes Friederich Sent: Saturday, 3 November 2007 7:30 PM To: Discussion on enhancements and development issues with the OpenH323 library Cc: h323plus@lists.packetizer.com; Opalvoip-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Opalvoip-devel] [Openh323-devel] opalvoip vs h323plus Simon, On 03.11.2007, at 10:26, Simon Horne wrote:

Robert

I hate to be blunt but I would like to point out a few facts.

The decision to fork Opal to OpalVoIP was purely yours and craigs. Nobody forced you to make the fork and you guys did it very much with your eyes wide open. You knew very well what new work I was doing in openH323 as well as the numerous projects such as Asterisk,Yate,GnuGk, PacPhone etc rely on OpenH323 for their H.323 support and that support would be disrupted if not lost with the abrupt move to OpalVoIP. There was a flurry of "concerned" private emails on the topic and was actively discussed on the days leading up to your public announcement.

The fact that all those features aren't ported to Opal (yet) is not lack of interest but mainly lack of time. I think Craig and others pointed this out as well. I myself am very interested to have a full- featured H.323 stack in Opal, and I am willing to do some of the porting work myself, but right now I am struggling to find even time to work on my main project, XMeeting. I have to admit I never really worked with the OpenH323 stack, but as much as I can tell, Opal not only offers multiple protocol stacks but also a better software architecture design. This itself should make it a reason to port the applications above to Opal. However, as long as most H.323-related work is done in OpenH323/H323Plus, the two projects continue to diverge, making it harder to switch to Opal later on. I think that the developers of Opal / OpenH323 should put more pressure on the projects mentioned above to migrate to Opal. I know it is hard to convince someone to fund such porting work, as there is no direct financial benefit for the funder, but at some point the cost of maintaining "backwards" compatibility by far exceeds the benefits of having this backwards compatibility. One should not only focus the projects one is interested in, but also consider the OpenH323 community and what's best for that community as a whole. However, I will by no means criticize your project split-off, as I can fully understand your motivation for doing this. ...deleted... Hannes ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opalvoip-devel