Hi Alex,

I changed your patch a bit. I hope that it would me more clear for users what 
the all counters means.

New patch attached...
Please let me know what you think?

Attachment: dlr_status.diff
Description: Binary data


Here examples:

        TXT:
Status: running, uptime 0d 0h 0m 9s

WDP: received 0 (0 queued), sent 0 (0 queued)

SMS: received 0 (0 queued), sent 0 (0 queued), store size -1
SMS: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, outbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec

DLR: received 0, sent 0
DLR: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, outbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec
DLR: 0 queued, using internal storage

No boxes connected

SMSC connections:
    FAKE[FAKE]    FAKE:20000 (connecting, rcvd: sms 0 / dlr 0, sent: sms 0 / 
dlr 0, failed 0, queued 0 msgs)

        XML:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<gateway>
<status>running, uptime 0d 0h 0m 35s</status>
        <wdp>
                <received><total>0</total><queued>0</queued></received>
                <sent><total>0</total><queued>0</queued></sent>
        </wdp>
        <sms>
                <received><total>0</total><queued>0</queued></received>
                <sent><total>0</total><queued>0</queued></sent>
                <storesize>-1</storesize>
                <inbound>0.00,0.00,0.00</inbound>
                <outbound>0.00,0.00,0.00</outbound>
                </sms>
        <dlr>
                <received><total>0</total></received>
                <sent><total>0</total></sent>
                <inbound>0.00,0.00,0.00</inbound>
                <outbound>0.00,0.00,0.00</outbound>
                <queued>0</queued>
                <storage>internal</storage>
        </dlr>
<boxes>
        </boxes>
<smscs><count>1</count>
        <smsc>
                <name>FAKE:20000</name>
                <admin-id>FAKE</admin-id>
                <id>FAKE</id>
                <status>connecting</status>
                <received><sms>0</sms><dlr>0</dlr></received>
                <sent><sms>0</sms><dlr>0</dlr></sent>
                <failed>0</failed>
                <queued>0</queued>
        </smsc>
</smscs>
</gateway>


Am 11.11.2009 um 14:27 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:

> Please see attached. I'm adding the patch for the kannel-monitor later.
> 
> Regards,
> --
> Alejandro Guerrieri
> [email protected]
> 
> 
> <kannel-dlr-status-v2.diff.zip>
> 
> On 11/11/2009, at 12:33, Alexander Malysh wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Am 11.11.2009 um 12:09 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>> 
>>> Ok, so you'd like the patch to transparently handle the concept of 
>>> "outgoing" dlrs?
>> 
>> yes that would be great... This is 5 minutes patch :)
>> 
>>> 
>>> It would be useless on many drivers where Kannel's acting as a "client" 
>>> only (SMPP for instance) but yes, on HTTP and derivatives would make sense.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> --
>>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>>> [email protected]
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 11/11/2009, at 11:42, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Am 11.11.2009 um 11:38 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>>>> 
>>>>> Alex,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Outgoing DLR's? At least on SMPP, there's not such a thing: when you 
>>>>> submit an MT with dlr-mask/dlr-url set, the submit_sm PDU has the 
>>>>> delivery receipt flag set. When the message is accepted (the SMSC sends a 
>>>>> submit_sm_resp), kannel creates a first incoming DLR and later on the 
>>>>> SMSC sends one incoming (deliver_sm) DLR (or more, if intermediate DLR's 
>>>>> are enabled) with the message status(es).
>>>>> 
>>>>> What do you mean with "outgoing DLR's" ?
>>>> 
>>>> at least for HTTP smsc we can implement DLR forwarding...
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> --
>>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 11/11/2009, at 9:36, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think we have to expand this patch to handle incoming and outgoing 
>>>>>> DLRs.
>>>>>> Now we don't differentiate DLRs from SMS traffic and therefore this is 
>>>>>> not a issue.
>>>>>> But if we start to differentiate DLRs from SMS we need to split it to 
>>>>>> incoming/outgoing
>>>>>> the same as for SMS traffic.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Alexander Malysh
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Am 11.11.2009 um 08:13 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Any objections? Can I commit?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 10/11/2009, at 15:46, Stipe Tolj wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri schrieb:
>>>>>>>>> This patch adds separate dlr counters on the status page. This is much
>>>>>>>>> clearer than now imho, where we have dlr's and mo's mixed on the same
>>>>>>>>> counter.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> For example:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> SMS: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, *dlr (0.23,0.12,0.12) msg/sec*,
>>>>>>>>> outbound (0.12,0.06,0.06) msg/sec
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> SMSC connections:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> *fake*[fake]    FAKE:10000 (online 109s, rcvd 0, *dlr 14*, sent 7,
>>>>>>>>> failed 0, queued 0 msgs)
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> http://www.blogalex.com/archives/222
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> yep, I'm in... +0 from my side.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 

Reply via email to