in all cases the conection name,is being passed. If I remember right
it was mainly used for logging purposes.
apparently there where cases in EMI where conn->id was empty or so.
unifying it would make sense in my eyes.
Note: I wrote the initial implementation in SMPP and EMI/UCP. The
CIMD2 and OISD implementations where probably added way later by
someone else who wasnt considering the connection struct could be
empty. Not sure when this can be but I guess this might be the case on
incoming EMI/UCP connections to the incoming port. In contrary to the
other protocols, EMI/UCP supports a incoming listener while in SMPP,
the incoming packets come on a outgoing TCP connection doing a bind
receiver (or bind transceiver). In EMI it can be done the same (in
large account mode) but simpler EMI implementations had a outgoing
connection from the SMSC to Kannel.
On 04.05.2009, at 19:02, Alejandro Guerrieri wrote:
Hi,
Just a quick question: I'm checking on different smsc's
implementations and I've noticed that, despite that dlr_add and
dlr_find are usually called using conn->id for the first parameter
(smsc), on some smsc's conn->name is used instead:
gw/smsc/smsc_cimd2.c: dlr_add(conn->name, ts, msg);
gw/smsc/smsc_emi.c: dlr_add((conn->id ? conn->id : privdata->name),
ts, m);
gw/smsc/smsc_oisd.c: dlr_add(conn->name, ts, msg);
Does anybody know if is there any reason for this or is it just a
different implementation?
Would it make any sense to change it to be in line with the rest?
I guess it makes sense to use conn->id since it's user-definable,
though conn->name is generated from the connection parameters (host,
port, user), though limiting what can be done with it (for example:
two different binds wouldn't be able to manage dlr's from each other).
Regards,
--
Alejandro Guerrieri
aguerri...@kannel.org
