Is it worth to code it now that new gprs phones don't have wap over sms option ?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Aarno Syv�nen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Hanz Hager (ESF)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 11:18 AM Subject: Re: WAP over SMS? > Hi Hans, > > "Hanz Hager (ESF)" wrote: > > > > Hi! > > > > Even though it is expensive to WAP over SMS, there is one good reason for doing so. > > It might be a long shot, but still a little bit interesting for some special applications. > > > > When you talk on the phone you can not simultaneously have a CSD session and on most GPRS phones you can not have data communication at the same time as you talk on the phone. Still, SMS is a bearer that works when you are on the phone. This means that a WAP push can come to the phone while you speak, but it also means that a user can use a WAP application while speaking on the phone. I guess this might be hard if the phone is held next to the ear, but you can use a hands-free equipment :-) > > Yes, it would be nice if Kannel supports as many bearers and phones as > possible. > Does this mean that you can accept a call when the phone is performing a > WAP > request ? > > > > > Now, having said that - can someone tell me if the job to make Kannel to support WAP over SMS is a big thing or if this is just not included because it has low support in the phones and at the operators? > > It is quite big thing, but not bigger than for instance writing a new > SMSC driver ;) > > > > If this is the case, maybe you can tell me where to start making the changes or help me to do it. > > > > I have looked a little bit at it and in my view it looks like the only thing that needs to be done is to make a connection between the smsbox and that wapbox if there is an SMS with a special UDH (or whatever it is that designated the WAP over SMS message) and the package the reply to the WAP request in a return SMS message. > > Yes, these are main things. Special UDH is a common way to mark a WAP > request. > There are a separate document for implementing WAP over SMPP, but I > think that we > should not use it (it defines so many headers that one wonders how many > bytes are > left for payload). > > Aarno > >
