Hi Alex, yes, I agree that a new dlr field would be better.
Aarno On 27.10.2011, at 09:51, Alexander Malysh wrote: > Hi Aarno, > > dict is not good because bearerbox can be restarted in the meantime and if > you have much traffic > dict will fill the memory. Maybe additional field in DLR DB? > > Alex > > Am 27.10.2011 um 09:43 schrieb Aarno Syvänen: > >> Hi, >> >> I work on patch that uses dict mapping incoming smpp client box id to msg id- >> When DLR is retuned, original box id is restored using this dict. >> >> MOs could be routed by smsc id, as presently, but by smppbox. >> >> Aarno >> >> On 27.10.2011, at 09:31, Alexander Malysh wrote: >> >>> 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] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >
