wap-push.cgi

2001-12-28 Thread Kiousi Maria ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

Hi again

can someone send me an example of this file : wap-push.cgi, to see what it
does, please?

thx in advance,
maria




RE: problems with CPU time with kannel 1.1.6

2001-12-28 Thread Anders Lindh


I too had problems like this with latest cvs. I tracked the problem down
to my smsc_cgw.c implementation, and the gwthread_pollfd() function,
which always seemed to return immediately without respecting the given
timeout value. I'm not sure what caused this problem, but I changed to
conn_wait() instead, which worked a whole lot better.

- Anders

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of Bjoern Buettner
Sent: 28. joulukuuta 2001 2:11
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: problems with CPU time with kannel 1.1.6


Hi list,

I'm using kannel-1.1.6, with a double pentium 866Mhz Compaq ml370
Server on Redhat 7.0 The modem Hardware is a Siemens TC35.

My question is, why is the CPU load so high on BEARERBOX-cvs 
SMSBOX-cvs


Here is the top output list.

+-+
 12:48am  up 269 days,  8:43,  1 user,  load average: 2.69, 2.23, 2.08
84 processes: 81 sleeping, 3 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped CPU0 states:
34.0% user, 65.2% system,  0.0% nice,  0.0% idle CPU1 states: 30.1%
user, 69.1% system,  0.0% nice,  0.0% idle
Mem:   517120K av,  320072K used,  197048K free,   20512K shrd,  143432K
buff
Swap: 1052616K av,3544K used, 1049072K free   75316K
cached

  PID USER PRI  NI  SIZE  RSS SHARE STAT %CPU %MEM   TIME COMMAND
12671 root  16   0  8176 8176   924 R98.8  1.5  4180m smsbox-cvs
12666 root  14   0  1768 1768   952 R97.7  0.3  4178m
bearerbox-cvs
27253 root   3   0  1080 1080   860 R 2.9  0.2   0:03 top
25712 root   0   0  1844 1784  1460 S 0.3  0.3   0:00 sshd
1 root   0   0   160  128   100 S 0.0  0.0   4:40 init

+-+

Thanx  best regards

Bjoern Buettner
Vodafone TeleCommerce GmbH
Germany


 E Malama I Ko Kaou Kai 
care for and save our seas






Re: wap-push.cgi

2001-12-28 Thread Stipe Tolj

 can someone send me an example of this file : wap-push.cgi, to see what it
 does, please?

As Aarno pointed out, wap-push.cgi is _no_ file itself as you may know
it from perl or bash CGI scripts.

It's used as URI trigger in the wapbox to know that a certain services
is requested. Please have a look into the user's guide for information
of WAP Push.

Stipe

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Wapme Systems AG

Münsterstr. 248
40470 Düsseldorf

Tel: +49-211-74845-0
Fax: +49-211-74845-299

E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de
---
wapme.net - wherever you are




Re: problems with CPU time with kannel 1.1.6

2001-12-28 Thread Stipe Tolj

Anders,

 I too had problems like this with latest cvs. I tracked the problem down
 to my smsc_cgw.c implementation, and the gwthread_pollfd() function,
 which always seemed to return immediately without respecting the given
 timeout value. I'm not sure what caused this problem, but I changed to
 conn_wait() instead, which worked a whole lot better.

could you please provide a patch that solved your problem so the list
can review it and we get it commited to cvs if necessary. Thanks.

Stipe

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Wapme Systems AG

Münsterstr. 248
40470 Düsseldorf

Tel: +49-211-74845-0
Fax: +49-211-74845-299

E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de
---
wapme.net - wherever you are




Re: sendsms

2001-12-28 Thread Andreas Fink

   I sent SM using php-admin/sendsms.php, but didn't gave any mobile number
  (receiver). Even then /cgi-bin/sendsms gave following response (including
  header)

  Sending the SMS Text message Testing. Shridhar Raju to the phone ...

  HTTP/1.0 202 Foo

  Content-Length: 5

  Content-type: text/html

  Pragma: no-cache

  Cache-Control: no-cache

  Sent.

  SM failed as no receiver was given. Is it possible to know about the failed
  SM from /cgi-bin/sendsms response.

Shridhar is right, when you URL is addressed without the to=
parameter we get a code 400 Bad Request returned. When we send an
empty to, like ...to=text=test.. then we get a code 200 Success
with the Sent in body.

I don't think it is reasonable to return a success if there is no
receiver number given?! We should make the HTTP return codes here more
semantical, IMO. Other opionions?!

I agree that any parameter passed as blank should be treated equal to 
the parameter not existing. That would simplify some front ent 
development who doesnt have to check all that anymore.
-- 

Andreas Fink
Fink-Consulting

--
Tel: +41-61-6932730 Fax: +41-61-6932729  Mobile: +41-79-2457333
Address: A. Fink, Schwarzwaldallee 16, 4058 Basel, Switzerland
E-Mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Homepage: http://www.finkconsulting.com
--
Something urgent? Try http://www.smsrelay.com/  Nickname afink