Here it is. Added support for dest also for cimd2 as reported by Byron.
I have tested thoroughly dlr_mem.c, but only compilation for DBs,
since i
have no access to them.
@Byron: Could you please test patch for CIMD2 against some of the DBs
you
use?
Thanks,
Nikos
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexander Malysh"
<[email protected]>
To: "Nikos Balkanas" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: Patch: EMI UUCP DLRs (final)
Hi,
sorry for delay... I have limited inet access now... see answers bellow.
Am 30.06.2010 um 19:30 schrieb Nikos Balkanas:
Hi,
Please see inlined answers.
Thanks for the comments and corrections. Please confirm a few remaining
choices.
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexander Malysh"
<[email protected]>
To: "Nikos Balkanas" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: Patch: EMI UUCP DLRs (final)
Hi,
IMO we don't need to handle no destination case in DLR lookup but
maybe
it's not a wrong idea to be able to ignore destination for some
reasons when SMSC send some junk to us.
Not doing it, could miss some queries altogether. It would still
work for
the large majority, but could miss a few matches that would have gotten
otherwise.
this is ok for me, we make it optional...
ok here is the review for your patch:
+ if (dst){
+ int len = octstr_len(dst);
+ char *p = octstr_get_cstr(dst);
+ if (len > MIN_DST_LEN)
+ p += len - MIN_DST_LEN; /* get last MIN_DST_LEN
digits */
+ like = octstr_create(strcat("%", p));
+ gwlist_append(binds, like);
+ }
why is this in every dlr implementation? we have abstraction for this,
see dlr.c
I don't know where in dlr.c you are referring, but I see your
reasoning.
This is leftover from a previous implementation, where I passed
use_dest
in the dlr_<DB>. I considered it at the time important to pass the
whole
dest to dlr_<db> so that debug messages get the whole dest. Since I
started passing NULL for dest, this serves no more purpose. I will
abstract it in dlr_find and use octstr_delete instead. Will also
correct
debug messages accordingly in dlr_db.c.
you have to abstract it in dlr_find and not repeat the same code in each
dlr_db driver.
- sql = octstr_format("SELECT `%S`, `%S`, `%S`, `%S`, `%S`, `%S`
FROM
`%S` WHERE `%S`=? AND `%S`=? LIMIT 1",
+ if (dst)
+ sql = octstr_format("SELECT `%S`, `%S`, `%S`, `%S`, `%S`, `%S`
FROM `%S` WHERE `%S`=? AND `%S`=? AND `%S` >LIKE ? LIMIT 1",
fields->field_mask, fields->field_serv,
fields->field_url, fields->field_src,
fields->field_dst, fields->field_boxc,
fields->table, fields->field_smsc,
+ fields->field_ts, fields->field_dst);
...
First of all: like ? doesn't work as you expect... it should be
something
like: LIKE CONCAT('%%', ?) and
Thanks. I will look into it.
this is too much maintenance for SQL that defined two times, how about
like this:
if (dst)
like = octstr_format('LIKE CONCAT('%%', ?)' ...);
else
like = octstr_create("");
You probably mean:
like = octstr_create("=?");
no, I mean octstr_create("") or better use octstr_imm("")
sql = ...(".... %S", like)
This is a classical maintenance vs overhead. Malloc is expensive, much
more so in Linux than in Solaris. Furthermore, sql="%s%S" is more
difficult to read and understand, since SQL mechanism is not
explicit, but
hidden in variables. Do you really want that?
yes, because maintenance is then easier and malloc overhead is in
linux not
so much expensive as you think because glibc has preallocated memory
pools
and not always is system call
needed.
The same is for DELETE, UPDATE...
+ if (like) octstr_destroy(like);
octstr_destroy will check for NULL for you...
I am aware of that, but it costs a function call and a few more
statements...Either way is fine. I can change it.
function call is not really issue against code readability... and if
this is
really your argument then convert all calls to if (..!=NULL) bla...
(just a
joke)
+ if (octstr_compare(dlr->smsc, smsc) == 0 &&
octstr_compare(dlr->
+ timestamp, ts) == 0 && memcmp(p1 + len1 - size, p2 +
len2 -
size,
+ size) == 0)
+ return 0;
memcmp??? why not just use truncated destination and do:
octstr_search???
Actually octstr_truncate won't work since it truncates from the end.
octstr_delete, would work, however, destroying the original Octstr
in the
process, unless I duplicated them. It would need to be done on both
destinations to work. Code would be more, and the malloc, free and
copy,
have an overhead. Memcmp doesn't change the original Octstr and is
natural
for such operations. However, it is out of kannel style, so you have
every
right to ask me to change it. Do you?
yes, please change it.
+Msg *dlr_find(const Octstr *smsc, const Octstr *ts, const Octstr
*dst,
int typ, int use_dst)
you don't need to change function. Just use dst = NULL and check it.
No. dst is needed for debug msgs inside dlr_find. Furthermore, use_dst,
currently is set only for EMI. Decision is made at driver level so
it can
easily change to an smsc configuration variable if needed.
ok, maybe you are right. What other people think about this ?
Am 26.06.2010 um 10:23 schrieb Nikos Balkanas:
Hi,
I believe I have accounted for almost all your comments to produce the
final working patch. I have no way of testing, other than compilation.
This patch will povide:
1) Align dlr_oracle.c with the rest. Currently, Oracle does a full dst
find/remove/update on each DLR.
2) Dst use on find/remove/update is controlled in dlr_find by a single
variable, use_dst. This is currently set only at driver level and
only in
the emi driver, while everyone else has it false. However, very
easily,
if need arises, it can be set in smsc configuration.
3) All DLR handling for all smscs will remain as it used to be till
now.
Only emi handling changes, hopefully for the better (that is the
purpose
of the patch :-)).
4) It will try to match the last 7 digits of the destination or the
length of the destination if it smaller. This is defined in
gw/dlr_p.h as
MIN_DST_LEN. Didn't want to make it larger, wanted to avoid prefix
territory at all costs, since I have seen a lot of mangling there
by the
SMScs. Besides, I believe that 7 digits give enough resolution
5) People using emi, should rebuild their indeces, especially if
they are
running large batch jobs through EMI. The LIKE % construction is
not very
efficient.
Enjoy,
Nikos
<kannel.diff>
