Future of TAPI - microsoft.public.win32.programmer.tapi

Message from discussion Future of TAPI
From: "Angus" <nos...@gmail.com>
References: <eKekwUWzIHA.2184@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>
Subject: Re: Future of TAPI
Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:07:13 +0100
Lines: 43
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Message-ID: <#M2VxZgzIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win32.programmer.tapi
NNTP-Posting-Host: mailgate.iteloffice.com 62.49.233.89
Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news2.google.com!newshub.sdsu.edu!msrtrans!TK2MSFTFEEDS02.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl

The thing you have to consider is that if you don't offer a TAPI interface
what alternatives do you have?

CSTA is one option.

Another option is to provide a proprietary interface.  for example, Mitel
provide an SDK which developers can purchase and develop CTI programs - but
obviously they will only work with Mitel PBX's.

It depends where you anticipate your market.  If your PBX is destined to be
used in call centres then CSTA could be a good option.  If your PBX is
general purpose then I would advise TAPI is the way to go.

Or if you want to make the interface to your PBX closed then a proprietary
interface.

The proprietary interfaces tend to be C API's.

Note that none of these options tend to be .NET friendly.  .NET developers
would need a wrapper around all these interfaces.  As would Java developers.

There is often a disparity between what developers want (flexibility, easy,
low cost) and what PBX vendors want (making money out of developers, tie
developers in, etc).

Angus

"Brent" <notha...@noemail.com> wrote in message
news:eKekwUWzIHA.2184@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> I am looking into TAPI-enabling our software application that we develop
and
> sell. I am a little hesitant to jump into this since it appears that TAPI
> hasn't moved forward in awhile. Is Microsoft going to move TAPI to .NET or
> continue its development at all? I would hate to start a major project
like
> this to have it end up dead.
>
> Thanks for any insight.
> Brent
>
>