Re: Future or TAPI
- From: "Matthias Moetje" <moetje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 22:32:21 +0200
Angus,
I agree with some of your points, but I disagree in some areas:
Regarding Unimodem: Call progress detection is a limitation of
modems, not of Unimodem. Modems don't have hardware support
for progress detection like professional telephony hardware has.
At some time I did some research on the full-duplex issue, but
I'm still not sure if even a voice modem exists that supports full-duplex
line operation. All modem specifications I have investigated only
mention "full duplex speakerphone" support which does not mean
full-duplex line operation, so what would a full-duplex Unimodem
driver help if there is no hardware that supports it?
So I don't believe that using AT commands will help much with your
development. It will only make your application dependant on the
modem chipset.
Regarding wave drivers: I think the PBXs Grant mentioned are all
VoIP based PBX systems. For conventional PBX systems (be it
analog or ISDN) you need to know that these are able to switch
connections but they don't have built-in line devices and they do
not have the capability to stream multiple audio channels to a
TAPI application. (wouldn't work anyway via the serial link which
is often used to connect a PBX to a TAPI server)
So again this is not a limitation of TAPI but of the hardware.
> I have worked with CSTA too. From experience it tends to be available
with
> larger PBX's. Perhaps Microsoft was more interested in bigger companies.
You may be very right here, this could be indeed the point why
they made this decision.
Best regards,
Matthias Moetje
-------------------------------------
TERASENS GmbH
Ackermannstraße 3
80797 München
-------------------------------------
Fon: +49 89 143370-0
Fax: +49 89 143370-22
e-mail: moetje at terasens dot de
www: www.terasens.de
-------------------------------------
"Angus Comber" <angus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23UOX2S8XFHA.2124@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> There are a lot of things about TAPI which are annoying. Here is my list.
>
> 1. Unimodem driver is pretty pathetic. You can't really do a lot with a
> voice modem. Progress detection is poor as is the half duplex limitation.
> I thought about developing a basic voicemail application and still might,
> but will use AT commands.
>
> 2. Vendor support is pretty good but often you have to pay for the TAPI
> driver or what I would consider fairly basic call control features such as
> forwarding and DND are only available if you pay a licence. I would like
to
> see more advanced TAPI features from PBX manufacturers.
>
> 3. In my small experience wave drivers for TAPI PBX's are not available,
> don't work or cost. Network Alchemy only had a wave driver for a
particular
> model, and apparently it didn't work. Wave driver for next models cost
> quite a bit. Strange thing is that these PBX's cost less than $1000 for
> basic models but you pay another $1000 for the wave driver/extended TAPI
> support.
>
> Also generally getting ANY sort of developer support from vendors is like
> pulling teeth.
>
> I have worked with CSTA too. From experience it tends to be available
with
> larger PBX's. Perhaps Microsoft was more interested in bigger companies.
>
> Intel don't seem too bothered about TAPI either. They now own Dialogic
and
> someone told me the latest cards don't even support TAPI. Or maybe their
> latest software doesn't include a TAPI driver. Not sure.
>
> Having said all that, TAPI does appear to be the number one API for any
> telephony work. does anyone else agree/disagree?
>
> Angus
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Matthias Moetje" <moetje@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:e5yPmF6XFHA.2796@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Hello all,
> >
> > in case you didn't already know, I'd like to inform you that the
> > new call control capabilities of Live Communications Server
> > 2005 SP1 in combination with Office Communicator 2005
> > rely on a CSTA link to PBXs instead of TAPI.
> > I don't know the reason for this decision but anyway I think
> > it's kind of sad that MS does not seem to rely on TAPI for
> > new products. (MS Speech Server is not built on TAPI either,
> > although TAPI would have been an ideal platform for it).
> >
> > Please share your comments...
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Matthias Moetje
> > -------------------------------------
> > TERASENS GmbH
> > Ackermannstraße 3
> > 80797 München
> > -------------------------------------
> > Fon: +49 89 143370-0
> > Fax: +49 89 143370-22
> > e-mail: moetje at terasens dot de
> > www: www.terasens.de
> > -------------------------------------
> >
> >
>
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Future or TAPI
- From: Angus Comber
- Re: Future or TAPI
- References:
- Future or TAPI
- From: Matthias Moetje
- Re: Future or TAPI
- From: Angus Comber
- Future or TAPI
- Prev by Date: Re: Future or TAPI
- Next by Date: Re: Future or TAPI
- Previous by thread: Re: Future or TAPI
- Next by thread: Re: Future or TAPI
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
