Good one, Alex Adding bearerbox-port to smsbox group should be a good solution. I'll follow that way.
Stipe, I'm waiting for your "sceleton build environment". Martin. On 6/14/06, Alexander Malysh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, why not simple define port in smsbox group always. so it would be possible: a) easier split bearerbox smsbox on different hosts w/o a need to define core group; b) tell smsbox to connect to any port also to sqlbox Anyway we have bearerbox-host config variable already in place, so just add bearerbox-port to smsbox group. That's it... Thanks, Alex Mi Reflejo schrieb: > Hi Stipe, > > On 6/14/06, Stipe Tolj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> that's a problem indeed. AFAIU the smsbox connects to the sqlbox >> rather then the >> bearerbox port. So sqlbox acts (from the view of smsbox) as bearerbox. >> >> Ok, that's why you guys need to seperate and add the config. But I >> think you >> should use a different .conf file for sqlbox, where the "normal >> bearerbox port" >> is set addequate to reflect the sqlbox(bearerbox)-port. This is a >> benefit, since >> it doesn't require to patch smsbox at all. Right? >> >> So, using 2 configs with core groups different for bearerbox port >> would solve >> the smsbox patching need. >> > > I don't see how a different config file *only* for sqlbox will solve > anything since smsbox is who needs bearerbox port to connect. If we > use a different .conf file *only* for sqlbox, smsbox would still > connecting to original bearerbox-port. > > If we take this way, maybe a very ugly solution is to start smsbox and > sqlbox with one config file and bearerbox with other but i don't like > this way. > > M > >
