Georg von Zezschwitz wrote:
Stipe Tolj wrote:
...
Can't we think a bit to have "multi-directives" with the same name in
a group?
Obviously we would have to tweak the gwlib/cfg.[ch] here ;)
I think this is an architecture issue, and I leave it to you in deep
respect :-)
If we have "multi-directives", I'd be lucky to use them...
come on, you're just in the mood for submitting patches, go on :))
OK, I looked at it.
What I would do is
- adding a MULTIPLE to cfg.def and cfg.c, meaning that multiple values
might be
specified.
- adding a WARNING (or should I panic?) if multiple definitions of the
same field
are occuring but the field is declared as OCTSTR.
(currently, a redefinition silently overwrites the old value - this
makes
it probably difficult to find mistakes for the user), .
- store a List instead of an Octstr for all MULTIPLE fields.
- replace cfg_get_list by a variant returning a list if the field is of
type MULTIPLE
This *IS* touching architecture - does everyone agree?
Best regards,
Georg
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
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGJ3uh9ez0oeKvYs0RAmeDAJsE9gfczxM8dB0jVPydmfKyVJwg6wCg1RBy
0y0+eX7g4qZRyL0gWveLMlQ=
=6GyL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
