[h323plus] [Opalvoip-devel] [Openh323-devel] opalvoip vs h323plus
s.horne at packetizer.com
Sat Nov 3 13:56:00 EDT 2007
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.
From: opalvoip-devel-bounces at lists.sourceforge.net
[mailto:opalvoip-devel-bounces at lists.sourceforge.net]On Behalf Of Hannes
Sent: Saturday, 3 November 2007 7:30 PM
To: Discussion on enhancements and development issues with the OpenH323
Cc: h323plus at lists.packetizer.com; Opalvoip-devel at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Opalvoip-devel] [Openh323-devel] opalvoip vs h323plus
On 03.11.2007, at 10:26, Simon Horne wrote:
> 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.
> forced you to make the fork and you guys did it very much with your
> 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
> private emails on the topic and was actively discussed on the days
> 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
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.
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 at lists.sourceforge.net
More information about the h323plus