but its not an excuse for a totally wrecked design bug On 19.10.2011, at 15:19, Rene Kluwen wrote:
> Like I said before: In clients.txt, you can put system-type to the > opensmppbox-id and you are all set. > > == Rene > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Aarno Syvänen > Sent: Wednesday, 19 October, 2011 09:35 > To: [email protected] Devel > Subject: Re: Using smppbox id > > > In my case, there is an application between bearerbox and smppbox. > Thus application must route to smppbox and not to its clients. > > Aarno > > > On 18.10.2011, at 23:25, Rene Kluwen wrote: > >> In this case the boxcid represents the particular ESME in subject to route >> the DLR/MO back to. >> Every ESME represents a different box as far as bearerbox is concerned. >> Multiple clients mean multiple bearerbox connections. >> What is (in your opinion) the bug in this logic? >> >> == Rene >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andreas Fink [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Tuesday, 18 October, 2011 17:47 >> To: Rene Kluwen >> Cc: devel Devel >> Subject: Re: Using smppbox id >> >> On 18.10.2011, at 17:44, Rene Kluwen wrote: >> >>> Once you look further in the opensmppbox documentation, you will see that >>> system-type (or system-id if use-systemid-as-smsboxid is set to true) is >>> used as boxcid whilst communicating to bearerbox. >>> This is to facilitate the proper return path for DLR's (and also: MO's) > to >>> the different ESME clients that are connected to opensmppbox. >>> >>> Secondly: You are right that opensmppbox-id is useless for routing >> purposes. >>> That's why it is never used. >> >> but the purpose of the box-id is the routing back to the proper box. > That's >> why I believe this is a bug >> if you want to carry along ESME system type information to the bearerbox > for >> logging or whatever, that's fine but it shouldnt be in the box-id as that >> has a clear purpose. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >
