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>
<kannel.diff>
