Hi Rene,
Why get things unnecessarily complicated? You can update openSMPPbox code
and leave the new argument always to 0 if you don't need it, or - even
better - set it to 1 to match against EMI and CMDI DLRs. You can always get
those in openSMPPbox, since bb can use differential routing.
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rene Kluwen" <[email protected]>
To: "'Alexander Malysh'" <[email protected]>; "'Nikos Balkanas'"
<[email protected]>
Cc: "'Kannel Devel'" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 2:39 AM
Subject: RE: Patch: EMI UUCP DLRs (final)
I propose the following patch. It adds
#define DLR_FIND_USE_DST
To dlr.h.
It is a convenient way to know if I should add an extra parameter to
dlr_find or not. So smppbox (and possibly other gwlib based programs) can
happily compile with the dlr_find with the extra option and also (if the
define does not exist) with the "old" dlr_find.
== Rene
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Alexander Malysh
Sent: Wednesday, 28 July, 2010 22:59
To: Nikos Balkanas
Cc: Kannel Devel
Subject: Re: Patch: EMI UUCP DLRs (final)
Hi,
patch with minor fixes commited to SVN.
Thanks,
Alexander Malysh
Am 26.07.2010 um 18:14 schrieb Nikos Balkanas:
Kyriaco,
Previous svn diff I got with -ub, which may be relevant. Try this one
which is only -u.
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kyriacos Sakkas"
<[email protected]>
To: "Nikos Balkanas" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Kannel Devel" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Patch: EMI UUCP DLRs (final)
Hi Nikos,
I got the svn snapshot today.
Don't think its an SVN problem, possibly some flag needed for patch.
patch 2.5.9
svn, version 1.4.2 (r22196)
Running on Debian Etch.
I should be able to hand patch the files where it is giving errors. Some
from what I saw were due to different indentation.
If you wish I can post the files detailing the rejected patches.
Kyriacos
On 26/07/2010 16:50, Nikos Balkanas wrote:
Sorry for the irrelevant question. I tried from a fresh downloaded svn:
zdev:~/work/kannel/gateway-> patch < kannel.diff
Looks like a unified context diff.
The next patch looks like a unified context diff.
The next patch looks like a unified context diff.
The next patch looks like a unified context diff.
The next patch looks like a unified context diff.
The next patch looks like a unified context diff.
The next patch looks like a unified context diff.
The next patch looks like a unified context diff.
The next patch looks like a unified context diff.
The next patch looks like a unified context diff.
The next patch looks like a unified context diff.
The next patch looks like a unified context diff.
The next patch looks like a unified context diff.
The next patch looks like a unified context diff.
The next patch looks like a unified context diff.
The next patch looks like a unified context diff.
The next patch looks like a unified context diff.
done
This is from Solaris using sunfreeware's gnu svn:
svn, version 1.6.9 (r901367)
compiled Mar 20 2010, 16:02:58
Copyright (C) 2000-2009 CollabNet.
Subversion is open source software, see http://subversion.tigris.org/
This product includes software developed by CollabNet
(http://www.Collab.Net/).
The following repository access (RA) modules are available:
* ra_neon : Module for accessing a repository via WebDAV protocol
using Neon.
- handles 'http' scheme
- handles 'https' scheme
* ra_svn : Module for accessing a repository using the svn network
protocol.
- with Cyrus SASL authentication
- handles 'svn' scheme
* ra_local : Module for accessing a repository on local disk.
- handles 'file' scheme
* ra_serf : Module for accessing a repository via WebDAV protocol
using serf.
- handles 'http' scheme
- handles 'https' scheme
Hope this helps,
Nikos
----- Original Message ----- From: "Nikos Balkanas"
<[email protected]>
To: "Kyriacos Sakkas" <[email protected]>; "Kannel Devel"
<[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: Patch: EMI UUCP DLRs (final)
Hi Kyriaco,
Are you patching against latest svn?
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kyriacos Sakkas"
<[email protected]>
To: "Kannel Devel" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: Patch: EMI UUCP DLRs (final)
Trying to patch to svn downloaded today (same version as in diff) and
getting some errors. I will try to change the diff to work, but id
someone has already done this, please forward,
or let me know whats wrong with my patch command line. Patch file is
from Nikos on the 20th.
/opt/svn/26072010/trunk# patch --dry-run -p0 -b < cimd_dlr.diff
(Stripping trailing CRs from patch.)
patching file gw/dlr_mysql.c
(Stripping trailing CRs from patch.)
patching file gw/dlr_oracle.c
(Stripping trailing CRs from patch.)
patching file gw/dlr_pgsql.c
(Stripping trailing CRs from patch.)
patching file gw/dlr_mem.c
(Stripping trailing CRs from patch.)
patching file gw/dlr_mssql.c
(Stripping trailing CRs from patch.)
patching file gw/dlr_sdb.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 212.
Hunk #2 FAILED at 256.
Hunk #3 FAILED at 285.
3 out of 5 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file gw/dlr_sdb.c.rej
(Stripping trailing CRs from patch.)
patching file gw/dlr.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 371.
1 out of 4 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file gw/dlr.c.rej
(Stripping trailing CRs from patch.)
patching file gw/dlr.h
(Stripping trailing CRs from patch.)
patching file gw/dlr_p.h
(Stripping trailing CRs from patch.)
patching file gw/smsc/smsc_cimd2.c
Hunk #1 FAILED at 2114.
1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file
gw/smsc/smsc_cimd2.c.rej
(Stripping trailing CRs from patch.)
patching file gw/smsc/smsc_soap.c
(Stripping trailing CRs from patch.)
patching file gw/smsc/smsc_oisd.c
(Stripping trailing CRs from patch.)
patching file gw/smsc/smsc_at.c
Hunk #1 succeeded at 2124 with fuzz 1.
(Stripping trailing CRs from patch.)
patching file gw/smsc/smsc_fake.c
(Stripping trailing CRs from patch.)
patching file gw/smsc/smsc_http.c
Hunk #2 succeeded at 931 with fuzz 1.
(Stripping trailing CRs from patch.)
patching file gw/smsc/smsc_smpp.c
(Stripping trailing CRs from patch.)
patching file gw/smsc/smsc_cgw.c
On 26/07/2010 12:40, Kyriacos Sakkas wrote:
Hi All,
Was away last week too :).
Is this patch already committed to CVS? If not I will patch locally.
Should be able to start running it tomorrow.
Kyriacos
On 22/07/2010 10:51, Byron Kiourtzoglou wrote:
Hello Niko,
I was away for a short vacation. I will try the patch as soon as
possible (but
I won't be able to test it until mid next week)
BRs
Byron
On Wednesday 21 July 2010 00:47, Nikos Balkanas wrote:
Hi Byrona & Kyriaco,
Did you get the chance to test the patch? The final one submitted
is
identical in function, except for some cosmetic changes. I am
mostly
concerned about the correct behaviour of the concat statement in
Mysql &
Oracle, and of course the overall compatibility with EMI & CIMD2,
and SMPP
for positive control.
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Malysh" <[email protected]>
To: "Nikos Balkanas" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: Patch: EMI UUCP DLRs (final)
Hi Nikos,
+1 except some indents issues but I will fix it myself...
Any test results from users?
Thanks,
Alexander Malysh
Am 20.07.2010 um 12:07 schrieb Nikos Balkanas:
OK. I believe this is it.
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexander Malysh"
<[email protected]> To: "Nikos Balkanas" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Byron Kiourtzoglou" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: Patch: EMI UUCP DLRs (final)
Hi Nikos,
see below ...
Am 20.07.2010 um 03:03 schrieb Nikos Balkanas:
Hi Alex,
Please see inlined comments: I am still waiting feedback from
some users
testing it.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexander Malysh"
<[email protected]>
To: "Nikos Balkanas" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Byron Kiourtzoglou" <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 1:14 AM
Subject: Re: Patch: EMI UUCP DLRs (final)
Hi Nikos,
I'm back from vacation and here are comments to your patch.
Patch looks
OK but still some things to fix:
--- gw/dlr_mem.c (revision 4833)
+++ gw/dlr_mem.c (working copy)
@@ -125,8 +125,28 @@
/* XXX: check destination addr too, because e.g. for UCP is
not enough
to check only
* smsc and timestamp (timestamp is even without
milliseconds)
*/
- if(octstr_compare(dlr->smsc,smsc) == 0 &&
octstr_compare(dlr->timestamp,ts) == 0)
+ if (dst){
+ Octstr *dst_min;
+ int len1 = octstr_len(dlr->destination), len2 =
octstr_len(dst); +
+ if (len1 < len2)
+ return(1);
+
+ dst_min = octstr_duplicate(dlr->destination);
+ if (len1 > len2)
+ octstr_delete(dst_min, 0, len1 - len2);
+
+ if (octstr_compare(dlr->smsc, smsc) == 0 &&
octstr_compare(dlr-> + timestamp, ts) == 0 &&
octstr_compare(dst_min, dst) == 0) { +
octstr_destroy(dst_min);
return 0;
+ }
+ octstr_destroy(dst_min);
+ }
+ else
+ if (octstr_compare(dlr->smsc, smsc) == 0 &&
octstr_compare(dlr-> + timestamp, ts) == 0)
+ return 0;
why so complicated?
if (dst) {
pos = octstr_len(dlr->destination) - octstr_len(dst);
if(pos < 0)
pos = 0;
if (octstr_compare(dlr->smsc, smsc) == 0 &&
octstr_compare(dlr->timestamp, ts) == 0 &&
octstr_search(dlr->destination, dst, pos) !> = -1)
return 0;
} else ...
Same degree of complexity. You use octstr_search, I use
octstr_compare.
Personally I wouldn't use either, but octstr_search is slightly
faster.
The only reason I used octstr_delete & compare is because you
told me to
use truncate on a copy, and I even asked you twice about it.
Will change
it.
It's not the same. In my version you don't need duplicate,
destroy etc.
and it just simpler to read...
--- gw/dlr_sdb.c (revision 4833)
+++ gw/dlr_sdb.c (working copy)
+ if (dst)
+ like = octstr_format("AND \"%S\" LIKE '%%%S' %s",
fields->field_dst,
+ dst, sdb_get_limit_str());
+ else
+ like = octstr_imm(sdb_get_limit_str());
why not keep sdb_get_limit() in place and do it as for other
DBs?
and \"%S... seems to be wrong...
I don't understand what you are asking for here. The code was
like that
before and I didn't change it. \"%S\" is a typo. Will fix.
why did you put sdb_get_limit_str() here? it should be keep in
sql =
octstr_format("select ... %s", sdb_get_limit_str, ...)...
--- gw/dlr.c (revision 4833)
+++ gw/dlr.c (working copy)
Msg *msg = NULL;
struct dlr_entry *dlr = NULL;
+ Octstr *dst_min = NULL;
indents....
+ if (use_dst && dst) {
+ dst_min = octstr_duplicate(dst);
+ int len = octstr_len(dst);
+
+ if (len > MIN_DST_LEN)
+ octstr_delete(dst_min, 0, len - MIN_DST_LEN);
+ }
I see. Intends are 3 spaces, instead of 4. That's why I don't
use
spaces. I tried my best, but please feel free to adjust them
exactly the
way you like them.
:) kannel uses 4 spaces instead of tabs...
:
indents...
/* destroy struct dlr_entry */
dlr_entry_destroy(dlr);
+ octstr_destroy(dst_min);
ditto
BR,
Nikos
--- gw/dlr.h (revision 4833)
+++ gw/dlr.h (working copy)
+Msg* dlr_find(const Octstr *smsc, const Octstr *ts, const
Octstr *dst,
int type,
+ int use_dst);
change to
+Msg* dlr_find(const Octstr *smsc, const Octstr *ts, const
Octstr *dst,
int type, int use_dst);
Thanks,
Alexander Malysh
Am 14.07.2010 um 14:38 schrieb Nikos Balkanas:
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>
<kannel.diff>
--
Kyriacos Sakkas
Development Team
Netsmart
Tel: + 357 22 452565
Fax: + 357 22 452566
Email: [email protected]
http://www.netsmart.com.cy
Taking Business to a New Level!
** Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this email
message may be privileged, confidential and protected from
disclosure.
If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination,
distribution,
or copying of this email message is strictly prohibited.
If you think that you have received this email message in error,
please
email the sender at [email protected] **
--
Kyriacos Sakkas
Development Team
Netsmart
Tel: + 357 22 452565
Fax: + 357 22 452566
Email: [email protected]
http://www.netsmart.com.cy
Taking Business to a New Level!
** Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this email
message may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure.
If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution,
or copying of this email message is strictly prohibited.
If you think that you have received this email message in error, please
email the sender at [email protected] **
<kannel.diff>
