An additional dlr field will work for DLR's. But how do you think about routing MO's?
== Rene -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Aarno Syvänen Sent: Thursday, 27 October, 2011 15:51 To: [email protected] Devel Subject: Re: Using smppbox id I like more an additional dlr table field. Msg id is actually a generally useful field here. Aarno On 27.10.2011, at 12:19, Alexander Malysh wrote: > or use metadata to store it... > > Alex > > Am 27.10.2011 um 10:36 schrieb Aarno Syvänen: > >> 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] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >
