Graphical Interface Vs. Com Interface

[Guest IVR_Newbie]

I love the graphical development environment which is so user-friendly and critical for a newbie like myself. At the same time, I helps me learn soon to realize that the COM interface can also be used to programe the design logic.

 

As I need to develop applications for a group of high utilization servers, each may support up to 96 ports, performance of codes become an important consideration. My immediate question is:

 

... Say for the same task, would performance (speed, resource utilization) be better if it is undertaken by Graphical Interface, or through a COM Interface design, assuming both have taken good programming practice in their development.

 

This wuold help me determine if it worth for me to develop a prototype quickly using the Graphical Interface, and then for certain modules, to translate into COM Interface before moving to production.

[SupportTeam]

The scripts designed using Graphical Script Designer will be quicker & more efficient then controling VoiceGuide via the COM interface when performing the various tasks invloved in IVR interactions.

 

The script (*.vgs/*.vgp) which is created by the Graphical Script Designer is loaded into VoiceGuide allowing VoiceGuide to react to input by caller immediately, whereas when using the COM interface any events/commands would need to be passed between VG and external program resulting in a longer chain of execution.

 

The COM interface allows an external program to be written to provide functionality extending what the modules in the Script Designer can do, and it sometimes is convenient to use the COM to pass various events to other programs or have other programs control what is played/recorded on the line, but I think you will find that anything that you want to do can be done with the modules available in the Script Designer and you will not be required to fall back to using COM (although COM sometimes is more convenient).