I will commit it shortly... Am 11.11.2009 um 16:54 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
> Yes you're right, now that we have MO and MT dlr info, it makes more sense to > have that on the "dlr" section instead of having it along the SMS data. > > Also on the smsc's, having the <received> and <sent> nodes is more clear. > > I'm +1 on this new format. > > Do you want me to commit it myself or will you do it? > > Regards, > -- > Alejandro Guerrieri > [email protected] > > On 11/11/2009, at 16:46, Alexander Malysh wrote: > >> 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? >> >> <dlr_status.diff> >> >> 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 >>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
