Mi Reflejo wrote:
Good one, Alex
Adding bearerbox-port to smsbox group should be a good solution.
I'll follow that way.
nop, I'm -0 on this... see my response on the other mail for argues.
Alex argues that smsbox would be "runnable" without core group... now, that
doesn't make sense in the current architecture. smsbox can't be running without
bearerbox. It's a "I hook into an upstream box"-box and hence needs to have a
connection to bearerbox. And that's why a core group is always semantically
necessary.
_If_ the smsbox could run without bearerbox, meaning you would launch it, and on
the HTTP application layer side it could do things without having at the
operational time a link to bearerbox, then the approach would make sense. But
that's not the case.
I recall again the 1-to-N architecture we have here for bearerbox(1)<->smsbox(N)
connections.
Stipe, I'm waiting for your "sceleton build environment".
yep, preparing.... we're in WorldCup feaver... so things need more time ;)
Stipe
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kölner Landstrasse 419
40589 Düsseldorf, NRW, Germany
tolj.org system architecture Kannel Software Foundation (KSF)
http://www.tolj.org/ http://www.kannel.org/
mailto:st_{at}_tolj.org mailto:stolj_{at}_kannel.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------
