Re: >> To be the OWNER, or not? That is the question!
From: Christopher Zielinski (czielinski_at_telecost.com.nospam)
Date: 08/31/04
- Next message: Andreas Marschall [MVP TAPI]: "Re: >> To be the OWNER, or not? That is the question!"
- Previous message: Tibor Csizmadia: "Re: BlindTransfer without ECT"
- In reply to: Andreas Marschall [MVP TAPI]: "Re: >> To be the OWNER, or not? That is the question!"
- Next in thread: Andreas Marschall [MVP TAPI]: "Re: >> To be the OWNER, or not? That is the question!"
- Reply: Andreas Marschall [MVP TAPI]: "Re: >> To be the OWNER, or not? That is the question!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 10:44:58 -0400
Thank you for your kind assistance, Andreas.
Affirmative, I can repro this with TB3x, and the TB3x log follows:
ITTAPI_1.EnumerateAddresses returned hr = 0x00000000
IEnumAddress_1
IEnumAddress_1.Next ITAddress_1
returned hr = 0x00000000
ITTAPI_1.put_EventFilter
long plFilterMask : 131071 (0x0001ffff)
returned hr = 0x00000000
ITTAPI_1.RegisterCallNotifications
ITAddress* pAddress : ITAddress_1
VARIANT_BOOL fMonitor : 1
VARIANT_BOOL fOwner : 1
long lMediaTypes : 8 (0x00000008)
long lCallbackInstance : 0 (0x00000000)
returned hr = 0x80040004
TAPI_E_INVALIDMEDIATYPE source (null) description (null)
ITTAPI_1.RegisterCallNotifications
ITAddress* pAddress : ITAddress_1
VARIANT_BOOL fMonitor : 1
VARIANT_BOOL fOwner : 0
long lMediaTypes : 8 (0x00000008)
long lCallbackInstance : 0 (0x00000000)
returned hr = 0x00000000
long* plRegister = 12879491 (0x00c48683)
ITTAPI_1.UnregisterNotifications
long lRegister : 12879491 (0x00c48683)
returned hr = 0x00000000
ITTAPI_1.Shutdown returned hr = 0x00000000
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
N.B.: Notice how the ITTAPI::RegisterCallNotifications( ) method invocation
is successful when performed without OWNERSHIP.
TSP: Unimodem 5 Service Provider
Appearance (dialable address): BCM V.92 56K Modem
OS: Win2000 SP 4
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
With kindest regards,
~~~ Christopher
"Andreas Marschall [MVP TAPI]" <Andreas.Marschall@I-B-A-M.de> wrote in
message news:OuJbjp1jEHA.2668@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> "Christopher" <chris@ipsc.org.nospam> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:eBfZFV1jEHA.3608@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Regarding: ITTAPI::RegisterCallNotifications - TAPI 3.x
> >
> > 1) When would one want to specify ownership of a call when the
> > ITTAPI::RegisterCallNotifications method is invoked?
> >
> > "fOwner - [in] Boolean value indicating whether the application will own
> > incoming calls. VARIANT_TRUE indicates that the application will own
> > incoming calls; VARIANT_FALSE indicates that it will not."
> >
> > For my purposes, I would want to be able to control an incoming call,
but
> > would not want to own it unless that was a prerequisite of control.
> >
> > N.B.: With some TSP's, specifying ownership will cause an exception to
be
> > thrown. I do not know how to interpret this exception because it does
not
> > appear to have any meaningful information associated to it. Although an
> > exception was thrown, the call notifications are still received, but
cannot
> > be unregistered because the method's return value was lost in the
exception.
> >
> >
> > 2) Is there any way to determine if one's process should be able to
> > successfully declare ownership in the ITTAPI::RegisterCallNotifications
> > method call, prior to its invocation?
>
> Christopher,
> 1) if you want to control a call (e.g. answer it) then you need to be the
> owner of this call.
>
> What TSP cause exception on ::RegisterCallNotifications with
> fOwner=VARIANT_TRUE ?
> Can you repro this with TB3x?
> If so, please post a TB3x log.
>
> 2)
> AFAIK not.
>
> --
> Best Regards
> Andreas Marschall
> Microsoft MVP for TAPI / Windows SDK
> TAPI / TSP Developer and Tester
> http://www.I-B-A-M.de/Andreas_Marschall's_TAPI_and_TSPI_FAQ.htm
> * Please post all messages and replies to the newsgroup so all may
> * benefit from the discussion. Private mail is usually not replied to.
> * This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
- Next message: Andreas Marschall [MVP TAPI]: "Re: >> To be the OWNER, or not? That is the question!"
- Previous message: Tibor Csizmadia: "Re: BlindTransfer without ECT"
- In reply to: Andreas Marschall [MVP TAPI]: "Re: >> To be the OWNER, or not? That is the question!"
- Next in thread: Andreas Marschall [MVP TAPI]: "Re: >> To be the OWNER, or not? That is the question!"
- Reply: Andreas Marschall [MVP TAPI]: "Re: >> To be the OWNER, or not? That is the question!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
