Hi J�rg, J�rg Pommnitz wrote: > > I think the bearer selection needs some thoughts. IMHO > making this decision in wap_push_ppg is a slight layering > violation (debatable). IMHO this decision should be made > in dispatch_datagram(WAPEvent *dgram) in wapbox.c. One problem: > at this point we lost the information about the type of the > address. I think this should be made part of the WAPEvent. > > What do you think?
I agree, in principle. However, PPG updates PAP attribute after it has found an unssupported bearer. (And PI can query it if it wants.) I think it is better to have all functions manipulating PAP attribute in same module (data cohesion of modules is one architectural principles of Kannel.) Aarno
