> I also would like to have more points of view on that. > Anybody here thinks > that "give-up-on-error" behaviour can be considered a "feature"?
I think I've missed the context of the original post but here is my 0.02 EURs: In a mission critical environment where there are multiple smsc connections kannel should always continue to work with other connections despite one has failed. And try to make the one that failed work again. And more: when kannel crashes, dies, restarts, machine gets restarted and kannel comes up and one of the smsc-s fails to initialize, then kannel should not close up but continue working. I've had many bad moments with the last one. I have emi2, cimd and smpp, can't remember right now tho which of them failed. <sarcasm bitter="on"> Anyway you should outline in the kannel architecture doc that kannel should be run one instance per smsc connection. That should save people like me from trouble. </sarcasm> Regards, Indrek
