Talk:Telephony Application Programming Interface

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Microsoft Windows: Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

TAPI 2 vs TAPI 3 section is misleading[edit]

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[reply]

Note to all: this work has been completed--Socnet (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Suppliers Column[edit]

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)[reply]

Misleading entry by DmitryKo[edit]

Thank you for tidying up the page, but I have to wonder why you described TAPI in such historic terms. It is true that it is an interface for "PBXs" rather than, say, hosted, multi-tenant telephony, but the article already says that. And TAPI remains the current and only method of integrating CTI to many of these PBXs.

SIP and the older H323 protocols are good, but they are not an equivalent, not even on hosted PBXs. They are primarily used to carry voice, whereas TAPI provides full call control.

You also left in several hosted PBXs in the list, and some PBXs that don't even support TAPI. I've removed these and left the list of PBXs current.

Finally, there is undoubtedly a shift towards hosted telephony, but PBX systems still outsell hosted telephony in all major countries. (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]