Well, there's (always) a tradeoff between simplicity and scalability, isn't it?
Regards, -- Alejandro Guerrieri [email protected] On 07/06/2010, at 18:37, Nikos Balkanas wrote: > Hi, > > Didn't intend to be pendatic. Whether smppbox is accepted in the trunk or > main tree, it is still being accepted, and documentation must follow. > However, if smppbox is rejected, no documentation is needed. If it is > revised, documentation will again have to wait for final implementation. > > I am familiar with smppbox functionality from Stipe's release. However, bb is > the hub for all external non-HTTP connections. I like current smppbox > simplicity and efficiency (it has faster I/O than an external box). Currently > it is a bb part and considerable redevelopment will be needed to make it a > standalone box. Unless a compelling reason exists to externalize it, I > wouldn't want to. But this is just my 2 cents worth. > > Cheers, > Nikos > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rene Kluwen" <[email protected]> > To: "'Nikos Balkanas'" <[email protected]>; "'Alexander Malysh'" > <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 5:34 PM > Subject: RE: smppbox > > >> 1. Thanks for the lecture. But documentation needs to be written anyway, >> either if the code will be part of the gateway trunk or separately. I am too >> busy myself to come up with some proper document any time soon. >> >> 2. I think you understood it wrong. Smppbox is similar to sqlbox with >> regards that it connects to bearerbox, just like smsbox. The patch is made >> for Kannel, but smppbox could easily be converted to some kind of >> smppbox-standalone, just like sqlbox is. You need to start it separately >> from bearerbox. >> >> So in short: Also a separate box, not required by everyone (as well as >> wapbox also, which happens to be part of Kannel). >> >> == Rene >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Nikos Balkanas [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: maandag 7 juni 2010 16:26 >> To: Rene Kluwen; 'Alexander Malysh' >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: smppbox >> >> Hi Rene, >> >> You may not be aware of it, but there is a 2-step acceptance. Or better >> phrased accept & commit. Once the patch code is accepted, the patch doc is >> submitted. Then the whole package is committed to the svn. No sense after >> all to create a doc if the code is never accepted, right? >> >> That's what i meant, and this is how it is traditionally handled. >> >> SQLbox is an independent separate box, and one that is not necessary to >> everyone. SMPPbox is part of bearerbox. It can be activated or not based on >> configuration. But this is a decision for Alex. >> >> BR, >> Nikos >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rene Kluwen" <[email protected]> >> To: "'Nikos Balkanas'" <[email protected]>; "'Alexander Malysh'" >> <[email protected]> >> Cc: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 4:46 PM >> Subject: RE: smppbox >> >> >>> You contradict yourself now. First, you said documentation should be ready >>> first to accept it. >>> Now you say that you will write documentation when it is accepted. >>> >>> Either way, I was wrong in my original post. I thought that sqlbox was >>> part >>> of de gateway svn trunk already. But it is not. >>> I don't know why not, other from historical reasons but I think (imo) >>> smppbox should be treated the same way as sqlbox. >>> >>> Personally I think they both belong to 'gateway' instead of separate >>> projects, because it is a lot easier for the users. >>> But okay... if someone thinks they have a valid reason to have them split >>> up >>> (like the way it is now), it is fine for me as well. >>> >>> == Rene >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Nikos Balkanas [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: maandag 7 juni 2010 15:39 >>> To: Rene Kluwen; 'Alexander Malysh' >>> Cc: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: smppbox >>> >>> OK, then. When it is accepted in the main kannel tree. >>> >>> BR, >>> Nikos >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rene Kluwen" <[email protected]> >>> To: "'Nikos Balkanas'" <[email protected]>; "'Alexander Malysh'" >>> <[email protected]> >>> Cc: <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 4:21 PM >>> Subject: RE: smppbox >>> >>> >>>> I see an excellent opportunity for you, Nikos, to prove your skills, >>>> writing >>>> documentation :) >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Nikos Balkanas [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> Sent: maandag 7 juni 2010 14:12 >>>> To: Rene Kluwen; Alexander Malysh >>>> Cc: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: smppbox >>>> >>>> Dear Rene, >>>> >>>> Thanks a lot for this contribution. Upon succesful acceptance by kannel >>>> in >>>> the main svn, bear in mind that an additional component will be needed: a >>>> patch to kannel's User's guide. This is a requirement to every patch >>>> submitted to kannel. Can you take care of it? >>>> >>>> @Alex: This is a long awaited feature to bearerbox. It is also the second >>>> large contribution by Chimit. According to Rene it has been used in >>>> production for over a year without problems. I would like to see it in >>>> mainstream kannel. Is it feasible? >>>> >>>> My vote is +++1 >>>> >>>> BR, >>>> Nikos >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rene Kluwen" <[email protected]> >>>> To: <[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 11:56 PM >>>> Subject: smppbox >>>> >>>> >>>>> Lectori Salutem, >>>>> >>>>> This email is about Chimit's smppbox. >>>>> >>>>> The rights to the smppbox code have been obtained by a third party, but >>>>> fortunately there is some good news for the open source community. >>>>> >>>>> An early version of smppbox (smpp v.3.0) will now be donated back to the >>>>> community. This version is by no means perfect and developers and >>>>> investors >>>>> are invited to contribute. All in the spirit of being an open-source >>>>> community. >>>>> >>>>> Chimit already developed the successful sqlbox, which is now part of the >>>>> main stream Kannel distribution, so if we all cooperate, this smppbox >>>>> can >>>>> go >>>>> the same way. >>>>> >>>>> To get you started, here is a preliminary download: >>>>> http://www.chimit.nl/kannel/smppbox.tar. >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately, due to the expected response, we cannot give you support >>>>> on >>>>> this software, other than via the usual Kannel users mailing groups. >>>>> There >>>>> is nobody with experience on this particular matter of software, so >>>>> please >>>>> bear with me. I have little time to spend on free software. But >>>>> releasing >>>>> smppbox is a priority now, even when I cannot give sufficient support to >>>>> all >>>>> of you. >>>>> >>>>> If you want a carrier-grade, commerialy widely deployed smppbox or EMI >>>>> server functionality, we direct you to the alternatives. For instance >>>>> the >>>>> smppbox that Stipe Tolj provides ([email protected]). >>>>> >>>>> Cheers to all, >>>>> >>>>> Rene Kluwen >>>>> Chimit >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
