Now that at2 is stable, could we remove the old at module and then include Matt's patch to at2 ?
Do old AT module have something that at2 doesn't have ? IMHO we should have a good at module, not several different ones... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Flax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "gatewayZgalore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2002 9:04 AM Subject: Oded's AT2 patch > Here are my thoughts .... > > This patch uses similar workings to my original work. The better thing > about AT2 vs. AT is that it has private memory which allows no > modifications outside this file, as well as the other advanages of this > phase2 thing ! > > Before the patch is applied, we need a clean patch. The one submitted > fails to patch .... after doing it by hand .... I have found the following > : > > Currently this works quite well. I have only been able to replicate tests > for SMSs which already reside in SIM memory b4 bearerbox startup. It > manages to read and delete from memory A OK. > From its operation I can see that it would work for SMSs which land in > memory during operation. I am quite confident that this patch will improve > AT2. I can also suggest leaving AT2 intact and creating AT3. I just wonder > wether people would patch AT3 with the same changes they make to AT2 ? > If we do choose to create AT3, then I must encourage maintainers of the > AT* modules to port patches to AT3 as well as AT2 and vice versa. > > -- > Matt > > For electronic musicians ... > Vector Bass : http://mffmvectorbass.sourceforge.net/ > For developers ... > TimeScale Audio Mod : http://mffmtimescale.sourceforge.net/ > Multimedia Time Code : http://mffmtimecode.sourceforge.net/ > 3D Audio Library : http://mffm3daudiolib.sourceforge.net/ > >
