Hi,
I liked it before, and I like it know. But Stipes seems to think that a more
general way for all smpps through meta-data should be used. Isn't it so?
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message -----
From: Alvaro Talavera
To: kannel_dev_mailinglist
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 6:11 PM
Subject: [PATCH] ok, this is the diff for esm_class,configurable from
meta-data, tested and working for me...
is only implemented for smpp, for now.. Here the diff.
Comments?
--- kannel-snapshot/gw/smsc/smsc_smpp.c 2009-01-29 08:38:28.000000000 -0300
+++ gateway-1.4.3-0.4/gw/smsc/smsc_smpp.c 2009-03-28 12:00:57.000000000 -0400
@@ -743,7 +743,9 @@
{
SMPP_PDU *pdu;
int validity;
-
+ Octstr *esm_class_default;
+ int esm_class_value;
+
pdu = smpp_pdu_create(submit_sm,
counter_increase(smpp->message_id_counter));
@@ -854,10 +856,22 @@
pdu->u.submit_sm.protocol_id = msg->sms.pid;
/*
- * set the esm_class field
- * default is store and forward, plus udh and rpi if requested
+ * set the esm_class field from meta-data, if not set, the default value
is asummed
+ * (Original: pdu->u.submit_sm.esm_class =
ESM_CLASS_SUBMIT_STORE_AND_FORWARD_MODE;)
+ * Alvaro Talavera ([email protected]) - www.puntopy.com
*/
- pdu->u.submit_sm.esm_class = ESM_CLASS_SUBMIT_STORE_AND_FORWARD_MODE;
+
+
+ if (msg->sms.meta_data != NULL &&
+ (esm_class_default = meta_data_get_value(msg->sms.meta_data, "smpp",
octstr_imm("esm_class"))) != NULL) {
+ esm_class_value = atoi(octstr_get_cstr(esm_class_default));
+ debug("bb.sms.smpp",0,"esm_class meta_data received, set in %i",
esm_class_value);
+ pdu->u.submit_sm.esm_class = esm_class_value;
+ }else{
+ debug("bb.sms.smpp",0,"esm_class meta_data empty, set default.");
+ pdu->u.submit_sm.esm_class = ESM_CLASS_SUBMIT_DEFAULT_SMSC_MODE;
+ }
+
if (octstr_len(msg->sms.udhdata))
pdu->u.submit_sm.esm_class = pdu->u.submit_sm.esm_class |
ESM_CLASS_SUBMIT_UDH_INDICATOR;
