What exactly do the done() and callback() functions in the plugin structure?
Are they required?
Van: devel [mailto:devel-boun...@kannel.org] Namens Donald Jackson
Verzonden: vrijdag 7 oktober 2016 11:50
Aan: kannel_dev_mailinglist <email@example.com>
Onderwerp: Re: [RFC] New 'box' Kannel Pluginbox
Hi everyone (again),
Thank you for the great feedback yesterday (publicly and privately).
I have updated the repository here:
And have included the HTTP plugin as promised with an example of how to modify
and reject traffic. If you have any issues please make use of the issue tracker
I'd also like to correct my mistake of only crediting Alejandro in my original
mail - thanks too to Rene actually started SQLBox ;)
On 6 October 2016 at 09:25, Donald Jackson <djack...@kannel.org
<mailto:djack...@kannel.org> > wrote:
I have started laying the foundations for a new 'box' for Kannel which intends
to allow users more flexibility in terms of the platform.
At the moment there are many ways to get messages into the bearerbox, namely:
smsbox, wapbox, opensmppbox, smppbox, ksmppd, sqlbox. Some rely on routing in
their own process and others allow bearerbox to do the routing. What they all
have in common is they don't allow external or third party applications help
make decisions at processing time (with the exception of ksmppd/smppbox).
My new planned box is called pluginbox which will basically be like SQLBox -
but instead of using database callbacks, it will allow linking of dynamic
libraries (.so|.dylib) which will allow custom
interception/filtering/modification of message packages to and from various
So a hypothetical scenario for this box could be something like
SMSBox, SMPPBox/KSMPPD, WapBox <--> PluginBox <--> Bearerbox
SMSBox, SMPPBox/KSMPPD, WapBox <--> SQLBox <--> PluginBox <--> Bearerbox
For those who want to still make use of SQLBox.
My initial design is to use an asynchronous callback chain to allow slow
plugins to not hold up the processing of faster messages. This would be
especially useful in the context of people using HTTP and other external
services to process routing decisions. The plugin would also be able to return
a status to 'reject' a message packet which would in turn not submit to the
My plan is also to implement at least one example plugin (probably an HTTP
plugin?) which can show the submission and manipulation of a message packet in
So here I am looking for comments.
1) Is this something worthwhile doing, does anyone else have a need for this?
2) Are there any considerations you wish to add at this time?
3) Are there any features you would like to see added?
4) Would there be any problem including this in the Kannel repository?
Here is the initial version : https://github.com/donald-jackson/kannel-pluginbox
Thanks Alejandro for SQLBox, its largely based on your code.