Hi, I also don't like separate bearerbox connections but how should multiple smppbox setup handled if ESME can connect to each of them? Static routing in bearerbox doesn't work here.
Alex Am 27.10.2011 um 09:06 schrieb Aarno Syvänen: > Hi, > > patch as I posted it is indeed not needed. But do we need separate > bearerbox connection for every smppbox client ? IMHO, this should > be changed, too. > > Aarno > > On 26.10.2011, at 01:06, Alexander Malysh wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> seems reasonable for me. Why we need the patch from Aarno then? >> >> Alex >> >> Am 21.10.2011 um 22:41 schrieb Rene Kluwen: >> >>> Yes, opensmppbox opens a separate box connection per connected client. >>> >>> I've heard before that using system-id is indeed more useful. So if you >>> want, go for that by using use-systemid-as-smsboxid or simply set the >>> system-type equal to system-id in clients.txt. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Alexander Malysh [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>> Alexander Malysh >>> Sent: Thursday, 20 October, 2011 10:05 >>> To: Rene Kluwen >>> Cc: 'Aarno Syvänen'; [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: Using smppbox id >>> >>> But the box-id is for the whole box connection or does smppbox open extra >>> box connection to bearerbox for >>> each ESME? >>> >>> Alex >>> >>> >>> Am 19.10.2011 um 23:22 schrieb Rene Kluwen: >>> >>>> Because the return messsges should be routed to the original client that >>> sent the first message to begin with... >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht ----- >>>> Van: Alexander Malysh <[email protected]> >>>> Verzonden: woensdag 19 oktober 2011 21:28 >>>> Aan: Rene Kluwen <[email protected]> >>>> CC: 'Aarno Syvänen' <[email protected]>; [email protected] >>>> Onderwerp: Re: Using smppbox id >>>> >>>> why box-id per client? I meant box-id per smppbox. Why do you want box-id >>> per client? >>>> >>>> Alex >>>> >>>> Am 19.10.2011 um 21:17 schrieb Rene Kluwen: >>>> >>>>> So you want a config option for boxc-id per client? >>>>> This is the same as configuring a system-type, isn't it? >>>>> >>>>> I agree, it's a hack. But better than cluttering the config files. >>>>> >>>>> == Rene >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >>> Behalf >>>>> Of Alexander Malysh >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, 19 October, 2011 19:41 >>>>> To: Aarno Syvänen >>>>> Cc: [email protected] Devel >>>>> Subject: Re: Using smppbox id >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> just looked through the source code and I can only agree with Andreas: >>>>> system-type has nothing todo with box-id. >>>>> I don't know who uses it and why but it's totally wrong. I would just >>> remake >>>>> this part and make it straight forward >>>>> from design and understanding perspective: kill existing box-id hack and >>>>> implement clean config options for box-id >>>>> and use _only_ these. >>>>> >>>>> @Aarno: you changed the code for data_sm only, how about submit_sm? >>>>> >>>>> Alex >>>>> >>>>> Am 19.10.2011 um 15:26 schrieb Aarno Syvänen: >>>>> >>>>>> This relies on assumption that no two smppbox share a client. I cannot >>>>> accept this. >>>>>> Besides, I can have two smppboxes connected to my application >>>>>> >>>>>> Aarno >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 18.10.201 >>>> >>>> >>>> [Het originele bericht is niet volledig opgenomen] >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > >
