Stipe Tolj wrote: > >Angel Fradejas wrote: >> >> The way sendsms requests get their way, I think this is not an easy thing to >> do. First, smsbox takes the request and if it has an empty sender, it puts >> "global-sender". smsbox does not know about smsc's. Then, bearerbox takes >> the request, and it checks for an empty sender. If so, it puts the right >> smsc "default-sender". >> >> I do not see a way to do your proposal without breaking smsbox/bearerbox >> interface. >> >> Anyway, I'm happy with the way I implemented that. In real life, one could >> have several smsc links, and have the same sender number for all of them. >> Then set global-sender and that's enough. Or one (like me) could have >> several smsc links, each of them requiring a diferent sender. Then leave >> global-sender unset, and set each smsc default-sender properly. > >your patch regarding the "default-sender" directive for the smsc >groups is still scheduled, currently I'm tending for a non commitment, >at least for the current form. > >I dislike the issue that one *must* unset "global-sender" in the core >group to make "default-sender"s work in smsc groups. Can you point out >the impacts of situation in mis-configured state? > >Is there a way to let both exist and in general smsbox will apply >first "global-sender" and then bearerbox over-applies for the specific >smsc to "default-sender"?! > >At least there was no heavy discussion on this topic, so I'm a bit >unlead here. Some more objections or confirmations from the >developers, please! > >Stipe
If you set both smsbox "global-sender" and bearebox smsc "default-sender" this is what happens: 1) smsbox gets the sendsms request and puts global-sender on it if "&from" is unset. 2) bearerbox get the MT message, finds the appropiate smsc to send it to, but it has valid sender value (smsbox global-sender). So it does not apply the smsc default-sender. For point 2) not to happen, bearerbox would have to be aware of smsbox global-sender value, and replace it with default-sender. Even if this is possible to do, I do not think this is a good idea. First of all, bearerbox would have to read smsbox config directives (think in smsbox/bearerbox on different machines), and second, every message with a sender equal to global-sender is changed to default-sender. One could not send anything with that number on sender. Besides from global-sender, we have sms-service fake-sender etc. If we follow that way of doing things, bearerbox would have to replace these too. So this is my point of view: 1) if all your smsc's accept the same sender (or any sender), use smsbox "global-sender". You can either not ser "&sender=" or set "&sender=" to a fixed value. Everything will work fine. 2) if each of your smsc's require a different sender (and reject any other number), leave global-sender unset, set each smsc default-sender appropiately, and leave "&sender=" unset on your sendsms request. Smsbox will pass the sms to bearerbox unchanged (empty sender), and bearerbox will select the appropiate sender based on smsc. I'm currently using this 2) approach on a productive environment for a couple of months, and I'm having no problems at all. I would be happy to have more feedback from developers too. Angel Fradejas.
