Hi List
Wouldn't it be possible to use an "index" for this messages that will
remain along updates/modifications, the text can change/be updated in
the future, but the "index" or message number will remain. ie message
"Message Sent" can have id 1 and if in the future, the message is
changed to "MT Sent" it will still be id=1. The text can be something
like "(1)-Message Sent" and after modification "(1) MT Sent"
therefore, if the message is changed or a new message is added, the
parser will recongnize it. The list of message Id asigned can be kept
hardcoded into bb comments, no need to add aditional file/code
Also what Nikos said about having a log parser officialy in code would
be great, but then, what to do with extratrated info will be the
problem: .. count events, insert into X,Y, or Z database, fwd to a
script.... options are endless. A basic parser that will allow people
to do basic parsing and a start point for own devs would be great.
Regards
Alvaro
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Envíe y Reciba Datos y mensajes de Texto (SMS) hacia y desde cualquier
celular y Nextel
en el Perú, México y en mas de 180 paises. Use aplicaciones 2 vias via
SMS y GPRS online
Visitenos en www.perusms.NET www.smsglobal.com.mx y
www.pravcom.com
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Alok Vaidya <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Alejandro,
>
> No, I guess you misunderstood me, I not asking to change any formats. I just
> wanted to know the changed format more closely so I can modify our parsing
> scripts accordingly, I guess Nikos got it and he has provided the format.
>
> Alejandro Guerrieri wrote:
>
> What's the issue? Sorry after so many garbage on the thread I still not see
> what's the point. Logs are fine and any changes made on the format are
> documented on ChangeLog.
> If your software croaks with the new format, either define a custom log
> format or change your software to use the new one. You don't expect that
> everybody else should accommodate to your particular requirements right?
> Regards,
> --
> Alejandro Guerrieri
> [email protected]
>
>
> On 19/09/2009, at 15:19, Alok Vaidya wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Just that we concentrate towards the main issue now as all other things have
> been settled.
>
> Alejandro Guerrieri wrote:
>
> What do you mean with "please solve the format issue"?
> --
> Alejandro Guerrieri
> [email protected]
>
>
> On 19/09/2009, at 15:02, Alok Vaidya wrote:
>
> Hi Nii,
>
> I now get the exact meaning of what Nikos was trying to say, but it looked a
> bit sarcastic then, now after your detailed explanation I can see why it is
> not. Thanks for clearing the haze. Thank you very much.
>
> Also since I can now see the things clear, let me sincerely apologize Nikos,
> for taking him wrong. Sorry Nikos, but it then so cleanly felt just the
> opposite. Anyways I got it now. Sorry for whatever wrong I might have said
> to you.
>
> And also as suggested please solve the format issue.
>
> Nii Ako Ampa-Sowa wrote:
>
> Alok,
>
> Nikos' comment was far from sarcastic. Earlier in the thread, Guillaume
> Cottenceau suggested that you make use of Kannel's DLR mechanism for your
> needs instead of parsing DLR logs.
>
> I think Nikos response was more in reference to that suggestion; he simply
> explained why it might be necessary for someone to parse log files instead
> of relying on Kannel's DLR mechanism. I happen to agree with his opinion
> that parsing the log files is superior for some scenarios. I actually parse
> bearerbox access logs myself on a daily basis for reporting. Others may not
> need this, but I find it more appropriate for my requirements.
>
> His final statement finally just states that if someone has committed an
> update which somehow changed the format, it must not have been deliberate.
>
> There's no taunting going on here. He was really just trying to help :)
>
> Nii.
>
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 9:04 AM, Alok Vaidya <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Donald,
>>
>> I respect your opinion here and the explanation that you offer. As someone
>> who follows the mailing list I do know Nikos as being someone who replies
>> frequently to the list, but can you explain me the comment he offered there.
>> Did you think that was helpful ? Even remotely ? That was sarcastic wasn't
>> it ? Now I am game for some light jokes as I am also for any opinion or
>> discussion one has to offer once I put my query in the public domain by
>> mailing it to a list, and yes I am certainly not here to prove my knowledge
>> or to prove any else for that matter. When anyone asks on a mailing list
>> that is because he is looking for some information beyond his knowledge and
>> for that I am open to any back and forth discussions with anyone on the list
>> which as you might have observed I was doing till (and even after) Nikos
>> intervened. But if someone hurls unnecessary, unrequired and uncalled for
>> taunts, then I am certainly not going to take that. And I beg to differ and
>> I am sorry for my strong language here but I didn't at all think that
>> through his comments Nikos was offering any help worth even a dime. Even
>> after that I tried my best explaining my situation without insulting him
>> anywhere. Also contrary to what you think I never disrespected Nikos or even
>> intended to rather it was quite the opposite. But in the mail after that he
>> came up with something that to me was a blatant lie, mentioning he never
>> ever mentioned me, which if you go through his remarks, you can very well
>> see for yourself.
>>
>> I would just want to close this topic down here as I do not want to blast
>> the mailing list with off topic posts, but my original question still
>> remains unanswered.
>>
>> Donald Jackson wrote:
>>
>> Hi Alok,
>> I think there has been a miscommunication or misunderstanding in the
>> dialog here. Alok, I don't think Nikos was trying to insult you.
>> Nikos is one of the most active and helpful members of the Kannel mailing
>> lists and should be treated with some respect, as he was after all trying to
>> help you.
>> If you want to continue this debate, please do so off the mailing list
>> (mail Nikos directly) as it has no relevance here.
>> Thanks,
>> Donald
>>
>> 2009/9/19 Alok Vaidya <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> Hi Nikos,
>>>
>>> I guess whom you are addressing then when you say "Alok's way is
>>> superoir....". I always get the facts straight and never comment on anything
>>> before making sure, unlike you.
>>>
>>> Nikos Balkanas wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> You are mistaken. I am not taunting you, not even addressing you. Please
>>> get your facts straight before you mail insults.
>>>
>>> Nikos
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Alok Vaidya
>>> To: Nikos Balkanas
>>> Cc: Guillaume Cottenceau ; [email protected]
>>> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 3:47 PM
>>> Subject: Re: access log format
>>> Hi Nikos,
>>>
>>> I ain't sure where you are taking this, but I guess I know, so if you are
>>> hurling taunts about anything I suggest you find someone else, as you have
>>> completely misunderstood my requirement and my question here in the first
>>> place.
>>> I ain't interfering with Kannel's DLR handling at all we have been using
>>> kannel for 3 years now and I guess that much time is enough to know about
>>> any software what it does good or bad. I never said we were talking about
>>> DLR's god knows from where you got that notion.
>>> We do not use the smsbox but a proprietary smppbox (licensed from Stipe
>>> Tolj) and we parse the log records whether MT or MO to get the information
>>> about messages and their delivery reports from log files to db.
>>>
>>> Yes I am aware about the dlr-url feature of smsbox to get dlr HTTP Posted
>>> back to me, but as mentioned above we do it other way.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nikos Balkanas wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Alok's way is superior to kannel's DLR handling. It inserts to the DB
>>> much more information about the original message than can be obtained
>>> through the DLRs alone and passed on to the dlr-url.
>>>
>>> If anyone has reduced the resolution of the logs, I am sure it was
>>> unintentional.
>>>
>>> BR,
>>> Nikos
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guillaume Cottenceau" <[email protected]>
>>> To: "Alok Vaidya" <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: <[email protected]>
>>> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 2:59 PM
>>> Subject: Re: access log format
>>>
>>>
>>> Alok Vaidya <alok 'at' routesms.com> writes:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Sorry I didn't get you.
>>>
>>> Are you programmatically looking for sent/failed SMS by looking
>>> at Kannel logs?
>>>
>>> Guillaume Cottenceau wrote:
>>>
>>> Alok Vaidya <alok 'at' routesms.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Thanks for replying. Yes I checked the documentation we can
>>> certainly have a
>>> custom format, but it is about the events that I talking here
>>> like "Sent SMS"/
>>> "FAILED SMS"/"Discarded SMS" etc., I see some changes there.
>>> Mostly I have
>>> figured them out but, I fail to understand some other entries
>>> which I have
>>> mentioned below as also I want to know more such changes.
>>>
>>> Let me elaborate why this causes problems. Our parser uses
>>> patterns such as
>>> "Failed SMS" to search for current (14.2 box) entries, now this
>>> event logging
>>> has changed to "FAILED SEND SMS" naturally this will not be
>>> picked up and hence
>>> we loose on such entries. That's my point here.
>>>
>>>
>>> I might be a little off topic, but why not using the mechanism
>>> made for that kind of things, e.g. receiving delivery reports
>>> from Kannel? It is supported, lets you ask what information you
>>> need, and is of course "supported" accross versions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Guillaume Cottenceau
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Donald Jackson
>> http://www.thearchitech.com
>> donald(a)thearchitech.com
>
> <alok.vcf>
>
> <alok.vcf>
>
