Hey, On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 12:05 +0200, Alejandro Guerrieri wrote: > Count me in! (Now it's 2 Alejandro's ;) ) I've had to change the darn > ESM_CLASS to DEFAULT about a thousand times :)
I think general consensus is to prevent adding SMSC-specific parameters to the sendsms interface, so I think this patch is a bit controversial and needs to be properly designed before it gets committed. Maybe we can introduce a generic-purpose field and use it for passing SMSC-specific parameters to the SMSCConn via sendsms? Maybe we can just let it in, and change the behavior later? I'm not really sure which way is better. Hmm... -- .O. ..O Enver ALTIN | http://skyblue.gen.tr/ OOO Software developer @ Parkyeri | http://www.parkyeri.com/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
