Hey Henning, <div><br></div><div>Ahh, thanks for that, thats perfect for now!</div><div><br></div><div>A pity, those names should have been a little more descriptive ;)</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks</div><div>Jason<br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Henning Westerholt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:hw@kamailio.org">hw@kamailio.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Thursday 03 November 2011, Jason Penton wrote:<br>
> For Asserted and preferred identities, we don't need to parse the content,<br>
> but in other headers I have not gotten to yet, we may need to.<br>
<br>
</div>Hi Jason,<br>
<br>
do you talk about p-asserted and p-preferred header? This are fairly standard<br>
headers, there are even some PVs to access them right now i think.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> Please help me understand, I would have thought from an architecture<br>
> perspective, we would populate the sip_msg structure with all possible sip<br>
> headers as well as the parsers. What is the reason we don't do this<br>
> currently? performance?<br>
<br>
</div>I'd guess the reasons is memory efficiency. The structure get bigger and<br>
bigger with every pointer. But for p-asserted and p-preffered, they are<br>
already included it seems:<br>
<br>
struct hdr_field* pai;<br>
struct hdr_field* ppi;<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Henning<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>