On 11/08/2011 02:13 PM, Jason Etheridge wrote:
If I understand the second half of your paragraph above, however, your
mapping table idea would only apply if we agree to store SMS contact
information as e-mail addresses, rather than phone numbers, correct?
I think that's a bad idea if true. Never know when these gateway
thingies might change, or when someone may decide to wire in a 3rd
party SMS service to use instead of free e-mail gateways. Sending
information to arbitrary email addresses could be another feature
worth developing (if folks are willing to risk the spamming of cell
phones, there shouldn't be anything wrong with email). So for
example, in the sms_msgs branch, right now we're putting (SMS) links
next to call numbers. That could evolve into (Send) or (Action)
links that include options for SMS, email, Facebook Like, Google +1,
etc.
And then maybe format options could be made available as well (Full,
Brief, Concise, etc.)
I agree with what Jason says about sticking with phone numbers rather
than email addresses for SMS notification for now.
I am not opposed to changes to shared addresses, nor am I opposed to
extending that sharing design to email addresses and phone numbers at
some point. If those ideas are still being hashed out for now, I don't
think my going ahead to execute this plan makes the shared contact info
work any more difficult to do later.
--
Lebbeous Fogle-Weekley
| Software Developer
| Equinox Software, Inc. / Your Library's Guide to Open Source
| phone: 1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
| email: [email protected]
| web: http://www.esilibrary.com
