Definitely an improvement IMO. And It does not break what we had before.
On Nov 11, 2009, at 18:36, Alexander Malysh wrote:
Nikos,
hmm seems you not reading anything just posting back? I come to this
conclusion
because I posted description of the issue together with a patch and
if you would read code and specs how to assemble
concatenated SMS then you would know what I'm speaking about...
Sorry for hard words but we waste time and bandwidth for such
emails...
Thanks,
Alexander Malysh
Am 11.11.2009 um 16:19 schrieb Nikos Balkanas:
Hi,
No i haven't read the code. And i don't think I should. A couple of
lines about what the patch is intended to do/or correct would be
much more preferable, inasmuch the code by itself can lead to the
wrong conclusion (unless you put it in the debugger with the exact
concat conditions).
@Alejandro: I was not referring to the sar implementation in the
SMPP spec. But the approach in the submitted patch, which is
general for all smscs, uses some heuristic like if they have the
same udh, which i have not the experience or knowledge if it holds.
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexander Malysh" <[email protected]
>
To: "Nikos Balkanas" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Alejandro Guerrieri" <[email protected]>; "Kannel Devel" <[email protected]
>
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix MO concatenation
Nikos,
did you read the code? I don't think so... Please do it before
saying anything...
Thanks,
Alexander Malysh
Am 11.11.2009 um 15:31 schrieb Nikos Balkanas:
I see. But according to SMS spec any concat should be specified in
the UDH header (?). Why do we try to support it outside the spec
and with a rather "iffy" approach?
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alejandro Guerrieri" <[email protected]
>
To: "Nikos Balkanas" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Kannel Devel" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix MO concatenation
Concatenation works, but only if it's done with the UDH parameters.
On SMPP the sar_ optional values could be used as well, but
kannel ignores that afaik.
Regards,
--
Alejandro Guerrieri
[email protected]
On 11/11/2009, at 15:24, Nikos Balkanas wrote:
Hi,
Any background info? Did MO concatenation work so far? If yes
what is wrong now? Any relevant ticket? Does this fix concat
for the case that udh doesn't specify it?
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexander Malysh" <[email protected]
To: "Kannel Devel" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 4:16 PM
Subject: [PATCH] Fix MO concatenation
Hi,
attached if patch that fixes issue in MO concatenation
handling. Just example:
- First MO with 2 parts (from:123, to:456, reference id in
concat=0, udh=A)
- Second MO also with 2 parts (from:123, to:456, reference id in
concat=0, udh=B)
Now when we receive part 1 from first MO and then part 2 from
second MO we will put them together.
We are not really able to differentiate First MO parts and
second MO parts but we at least able to minimize
possibility to wrong assemble parts when we check whether UDH
(without concatenation info) is the same.
Please check attached patch.
Looking for feedback...
Thanks,
Alexander Malysh
