commited to cvs... Am 11.11.2009 um 17:21 schrieb Alexander Malysh:
> 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 >>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
