Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 11:17:16 +0300 From: Juha-Matti Liukkonen <jml@cubical.fi> To: hselasky@c2i.net Cc: freebsd-isdn@freebsd.org, Steven Looman <steven@krx.nl> Subject: Re: Asterisk on FreeBSD + ISDN BRI Message-ID: <A1F9D453-B4EC-4887-8AA0-1C9C6FDADB5C@cubical.fi> In-Reply-To: <200505281534.58499.hselasky@c2i.net> References: <20050526202222.E2BD81EAE291@alice.turbocat.de> <20050527140607.GA41449@minerva.krx.nl> <DABECAF6-58C5-4F46-8C61-F71DBD12E675@cubical.fi> <200505281534.58499.hselasky@c2i.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 28.5.2005, at 16.34, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > I know that Windows uses CAPI to support ISDN devices, but the =20 > problem there > is that only one ISDN device is allowed at a time. So can CAPI =20 > handle more > than one physical device per CAPI interface (/dev/capi20) ? The CAPI specs (www.capi.org), part 2 section 8.5 (unix interface), =20 which is obviously written with Solaris in mind, says: "COMMON-ISDN-API's device name is /dev/capi20. To allow multiple =20 access by different UNIX processes, the device is realized as a clone streams device." In the same section the CAPI_GET_PROFILE operation is defined to =20 return a 16-bit unsigned value for number of supported controllers. =20 So multiple clients for multiple controllers is possible, unless the =20 implementation somehow restricts it. >> On 27.5.2005, at 17.06, Steven Looman wrote: >>> The ability to use CAPI with cheap cards (like in Windows for >>> example) sounds >>> great as it would be easier to write multiplatform applications. >>> > > I don't think that CAPI is fit for every situation. Putting things =20 > in a > library on top of "isdnd" is going to be much more powerful than if =20= > one > writes a dedicated CAPI-compatible telephony application? CAPI is a lower-level thing than isdnd; it is more akin to i4b layer =20 3. It allows moving call control logic to userspace processes - but =20 more improtantly, it is sort-of a standard. Which would potentially =20 mean binary compatibility with some lunix apps. > What kind of applications are we talking about porting? That being the =E2=82=AC64K question :-) Br, Jussi - -- Juha-Matti Liukkonen - Senior Consultant, Partner, Cubical Solutions Oy tel: +358-40-5280142 e-mail: jml@cubical.fi -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin) iD8DBQFCmswNKDUn3bh7M9gRAsz+AJwPA1HYFspScUJhw9TPGPZwLM2RogCg5Zyv 0YQqd5TY0iyXhirOD1xhiFs=3D =3DFaSk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A1F9D453-B4EC-4887-8AA0-1C9C6FDADB5C>