I am using asterisk 11.9.0 and i want to generate an outgoing call.I found that for outgoing i have to make a .call file and place it in a var/spool/asterisk/outgoing.I am following the link below
http://the-asterisk-book.com/1.6/call-file.html#call-file-parameter
my code is same as given in the above link,the above example uses only single fixed number to call.
My problem is that
i have to generate an outgoing to a number fetched from database(outgoing to new number everytime),so how to write the code of .call file for multiple numbers outgoing and how to pass these numbers fetched from database to .call file from my extensions.conf
Is there any way to do that.
I am new to asterisk.
Any help would be appreciated.
You can use vicidial.org software to do that things.
Note, it is very bad idea do outboudn dialler-like app in asterisk without understanding asterisk logic and very-hi skills in programming/database.
For more info you also can use this page
http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/Asterisk+auto-dial+out
Might be easier using WombatDialer as it has a plain API where you can tell it what you want it to do and it will take care of the rest. We have a plain set up for outbound and it took maybe a couple of days from zero to what we have now. ViciDial would have been overkill.
On why rolling your own is not a great idea, the Wombat manual is quite clear: http://manuals.loway.ch/WD_UserManual-chunked/ch01.html#_why_was_wombatdialer_created
You could also use the AMI (Asterisk Manager Interface), would be easier to program with a deamon running in the back to control what gets dialed and the responses to those dials. Mora info here https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4817239.
Related
Currently i am using the REST interface to query vespa, which seems to work great but something tells me that i should be using searchers in the application to make the client(server side code) a bit lighter (bundle the jar file in the application package) to make it a bit smoother. I have managed to do some simple searcher/processor applications. But this is a bit overwhelming.
So are there any readily available examples ?
Basicially i want to:
Send to /search?query=someId
Do a ordinary search for the weighted set on this documentID (I guess this one can be handy: https://docs.vespa.ai/documentation/reference/inspecting-structured-data.html)
Take those items in the response and add it to a wand item(s) and query for a wand with wandsearcher on a given field. Similar to the yql:
"select * from sources * where wand(interest, some weightedsets));","ranking":"combined_score" and return the matches.
Just curious also, apart from the trouble of string building with the http request i am doing at the moment are there any performance gains of using a searcher or go the java route vs rest?
thanks for any insight or code help i can start with.
There is an example of using the WandItem (YQL wand)here https://docs.vespa.ai/documentation/advanced-ranking.html and see also https://docs.vespa.ai/documentation/using-wand-with-vespa.html as there are two wand implementations available in Vespa, it sounds from the description that the wand() is what you want to use for this use case. For the first call you probably want to have a dedicated document summary to reduce the amount of data fetched for your first query and also the option of serving it out of memory only (See https://docs.vespa.ai/documentation/document-summaries.html)
Also see https://docs.vespa.ai/documentation/searcher-development.html as a general resource on writing searchers.
For your use case it makes a lot of sense to write a searcher to perform these two queries as your second query depends on the first and you avoid the cost of rendering/http/yql parsing which might matter if your client is remote with high network latency.
First i would like to apologize for my bad english, I wish you will understand my problem.
Here's my question, for my internship, I need to create a fonctionality that allows a caller to put his call in waiting, with a button, and to take the call back with that button again. And i think there's an option with SIP protocol that allows to do that, but i just can't find it, i searched in internet in some documentations, the only thing I might know and i'm not even sure is that it could be an option in a re-INVITE request, that can be send by the called or the caller one, if someone could help me ?
Thanks
The feature you are looking for is achieved by implementing the Call Hold Scenario on a SIP Call.
there are 3 ways to put the call on hold at the press of the button.
Generate a Re-INVITE SDP with SendOnly option - the answer shall contain a recvonly and in this case you can go ahead and inject hold music media through the rtp stream.
Sending inactive in the Re-INVITE SDP which basically puts the media inactive for the session. This is when no rtp exchange is desired.
Sending the 0.0.0.0 notation for the Re-INVITE SDP - This is the old deprecated format of call hold when IPV4 was still the norm [still is!!] but it makes sure the RTP doesn't have a ip to be sent.
All of these mechanisms rely on the basic methods and hence it shouldn't be very difficult to achieve using any client software.
I want to play a media file from a memory stream using LibVLC like so:
//Ideally it would go like this:
LibVLC.MediaFromStream = new MemoryStream(File.ReadAllBytes(File_Path));
Of course this is a very oversimplified version of what I want but hopefully it conveys what I am looking for.
The reason being that I want there to be a good amount of portability for what I'm doing without having to track file locations and such. I'd rather have a massive clump of data in a single file that can be read from than have to track the locations of one or many more files.
I know this has something to do with the LibVLC IMEM Access module. However, looking at what information I've been able to find on that, I feel like I've been tossed from a plane and have just a few minutes to learn how to fly before I hit the ground.
See my answer to a similar question here:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/31316867/2202445
In summary, the API:
libvlc_media_t* libvlc_media_new_callbacks (libvlc_instance_t * instance,
libvlc_media_open_cb open_cb,
libvlc_media_read_cb read_cb,
libvlc_media_seek_cb seek_cb,
libvlc_media_close_cb close_cb,
void * opaque)
allows just this. The four callbacks must be implemented, although the documentation states the seek callback is not always necessary, see the libVlc documentation. I give an example of a partial implementation in the above answer.
There is no LibVLC API for imem, at least not presently.
You can however still use imem in your LibVLC application, but it's not straightforward...
If you do vlc -H | grep imem you will see something like this (this is just some of the options, there are others too):
--imem-get <string> Get function
--imem-release <string> Release function
--imem-cookie <string> Callback cookie string
--imem-data <string> Callback data
You can pass values for these switches either when you create your libvlc instance via libvlc_new(), or when you prepare media via libvlc_media_add_option().
Getting the needed values for these switches is a bit trickier, since you need to pass the actual in-memory address (pointer) to the callback functions you declare in your own application. You end up passing something like "--imem-get 812911313", for example.
There are downsides to doing it this way, e.g. you may not be able to seek backwards/forwards in the stream.
I've done this successfully in Java, but not C# (never tried).
An alternative to consider if you want to play the media data stored in a file, is to store your media in a zip or rar since vlc has plugins to play media from directly inside such archives.
I'm working on a library which implements the actor model on top of Grand Central Dispatch (specifically the C level API libdispatch). Basically a brief overview of my system is as such:
Communication happens between actors using messages
Multicast communication only (one actor to many actors)
Senders and receivers are decoupled from one another using a blackboard where messages are pushed to.
Messages are sent in the default queue asynchronously using dispatch_group_async() once a message gets pushed onto the blackboard.
I'm trying to implement futures in the language right now, so I've created a new type which holds some information:
A group of its own
The value being 'returned'
However, I have a problem since dispatch_block_t is of type void (^)(void) so it doesn't return anything. So my idea of in my future_new() function of setting up another group which can be used to execute a block returning a result, which I can store in my "value" member in my future_t structure, isn't going to work.
The rest of the futures implementation is very clear, except it all depends on being able to get the value into the future back from the actor, acting on the message.
When using the library, it would greatly reduce its usefulness if I had to ask users (and myself) to be aware when futures were going to be used by other parts of the system—It just isn't practical.
I'm wondering if anyone can think of a way around this?
Actually had Mike Ash's implementation pointed out to me, and as soon as I saw his initWithBlock: on MAFuture, I realized what I needed to do. Very much akin to what's done there, so I'll save the long winded response about how I'm doing it.
I want to write a client program that communicates with the application server via standard TCP/IP. The client can speak to the application server and be authenticated by simply speaking in a specific text based protocol. The traffic will be encrypted, but there won't be username/password. If another application tries to communicate with the application server and if the application doesn't use the correct text based protocol, the application server will silently discard packets.
Waiting for suggestions.
You can use a simplified version of TLV (Tag Length Value).
The basic idea is to define a set of message types which are represented by a code of fixed size (the T for Tag). Depending the type of message the contents of it (the V for Value) can very so you specify its length (the L for Length) before the contents. The Length field also has fixed size
Suppose you have one message used to send user data to the server. You can define a message like:
0x01 0x0018 0x11 0x0003 tom 0x12 0x000F tom#hotmail.com
Tag: 0x10 User data. Length: 0x0018 Value: sub tags
Tag 0x11: user name Length: 0x0003 Value = tom
Tag 0x12: email. Length: 0x000F. Value = tom#hotmail.com
Edited:
I was about to forget: Merry Christmas :)
Take a look at BEEP.
You might also find some good examples at four.livejournal.com; he's gotten good results writing an HTTP parser using the Ragel state machine generator, and also by hand.
if your not comfortable with the limitited functionality (verbs) provided HTTP just add more verbs. This is what the REST architecture is for.
If you want to continue down your path of folly (your talking about reinventing HTTPS), then use protocol buffers to create a protocol -- it will save you hours of grief.
-- edit --
If your objective is to understand the programming involved with web-servers, you might want to read apache's code dissected by the FMC group into a collection of models. I have read this PDF multiple times -- it is an absolute gold mine.
All the other comments are good, and stuff like BEEP, or doing some custom TLV encoding can get you along way, as well as using something like Google protocol buffers, but none of these are what I'd really call real simple.
A very simple text based protocol could just use a new line as the message delimiter. This is how IRC does it. Its not the most efficient, but if your messages are reasonably small it could work quite well. You could also prefix your message with a much shorter line telling the receiver how long the next message is.
If you want to use a light framework, look at libevent. It can assist in your IO and do line delimited reading for you.
If the language (protocol) is not already determined for you, then that is what you should design first, or look at something that already exists - XML, JSON chunks, netstrings, etc.
You can look at some of the sample code from TCP/IP Sockets in C.
It has many examples of doing client/server communication in C. Without more details, it's difficult to know what you really want to handle...
For communicating between bespoke apps, you can just send your text format in TCP packets. You can use an extremely simple text format, but you should make sure that it starts with some text that clearly identifies to your server that it is a packet from your client, and not from an imposter. (Clearly this is not terribly good security, but that's not the point of your question).
A good place to start is to use XML for your text-based format. This is dead simple to write/read, and is flexible and extensible so you can easily add more information to your packets at a later date - the biggest thing you can get wrong is to use a communications format that can't be extended!
Once you have basic comms working, you can enhance the format to send more information, add encryption and other security measures, and consider moving to a binary (more secure, more compact and efficient) format. BUt you can work your way to this stage in small easy steps.
So the right direction:
Get two programs talking via TCP. Just a simple packet with the text "bob" in it is enough at this stage, just to verify that the messaging is working. There are any number of simple tutorials on the web to get this going, and it's just a few lines of code once you work out what's needed.
Then build your packets. Start with the simplest approach that gives you a unique ID (to verify that the packet is from the right program) and a means to add new data to the packet easily in future. Xml is ideal for this. Don't worry about security, just concentrate on the actual "conversation" you wish to convey between the programs - what data they wish to exchange and how to encode it.
Step by step improve the communications protcol until it achieves what you want - smaller, faster, binary, more robust, fault tolerant, secure, etc. Each of these steps will be an interesting little challenge and by the time you've done them all you'll have learned a lot.
Look at the chapter on text protocols in 'The Art of UNIX Programming' by E S Raymond. It covers a lot of the relevant ideas at a high level, with good examples, and explanations of why they are good examples. It mentions BEEP.
I've recently read a book on this topic. It's called "TCP IP Sockets in C", by Michael J. Donahoo and Kenneth L. Calvert. You if you can afford it, it's a nice tutorial/reference book to have.
If you'd like you can try create the client<->server pair in Java, as it is easier to grasp the idea, and then rethink the solution at a lower level in C.