Talk:Telephony Application Programming Interface
![]() | Computing Start‑class | |||||||||
|
![]() | Microsoft Windows: Computing Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||
|
TAPI 2 vs TAPI 3 section is misleading
It talks in this section how TAPI 3.x is COM based with the intention of making it accessible in managed code envionments. However this isn't true - COM has nothing to do with managed code. Further to that TAPI 3 cannot be used in managed code and have any guarantees about it's execution. There's an MS knowledge base article on it somewhere.
I'd rather an expert on TAPI rewrote the section if someone is watching, otherwise I'll do it myself at some point.--Notorious Biggles 21:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC) cool
- Note to all: this work has been completed--Socnet (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Alternate Suppliers Column
IMHO, removing the column was a bad idea. Now it looks like there's a bug of PBXs that don't support TAPI, and that's pejorative. The PBXs do have perfectly good TAPI drivers, but just not from the manufacturer. That's not always a bad thing.
By way of example only, the Allworx TAPI driver is "first party only" which is quite restricting, but there are "third party TAPI drivers" also available. (That's "third party" in the TAPI sense, as well as meaning make by someone else).
This information is sadly lost. I for one used it for reference. There's nowhere else on the internet with this information. The "suppliers" of such tech may not have been "notable" in some senses of the work, but in TAPI circles, Mondago and Estos are the powerhouses keeping the technology alive.Socnet (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)