On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 16:11 +0200, Stipe Tolj wrote:
1.5.0 devel will then evolve to 1.4.2 stable.
Now this seems a bit weird to me. I think we need a separate discussion
about the release cycle.
--
.O.
..O Enver ALTIN | http://enveraltin.com/
OOO Software developer @
Andreas,
How do I do this?
I only have the one smsc configuration, with the tx and rx ports set.
So as far as I am aware its only on session anyway? If you mean a
transceiver , they are not supported by the operator.
Regards
Ben
On 21 Oct 2006, at 07:59, Andreas Fink wrote:
In this case
Hi Ben,
Ben Suffolk wrote:
I had assumed that the deliver_sm would come in on the RX bind, and the
submit_sm_resp as the reply on the TX bind. Are you saying the same
thread handles both these binds? If so is it possible that the SMSC did
in fact deliver the submit_sm_resp fractionally
Ben Suffolk wrote:
Stipe,
I had assumed that the deliver_sm would come in on the RX bind, and
the submit_sm_resp as the reply on the TX bind. Are you saying the
same thread handles both these binds? If so is it possible that the
SMSC did in fact deliver the submit_sm_resp fractionally
Hi Andreas,
Andreas Fink wrote:
In this case the solution is to use a SINGLE session instead one for
receive and one for transmit.
yep, a TRX (transceier) session may be used here...
But this has no implications to the logical PDU flow. The SMSC could still
behace like this:
ESME
Ben Suffolk wrote:
Andreas,
How do I do this?
I only have the one smsc configuration, with the tx and rx ports set.
So as far as I am aware its only on session anyway? If you mean a
transceiver , they are not supported by the operator.
yep, Andreas means the tranceiver mode actually.
If someone ask for my opinion:
I agree with this.
Rene Kluwen
Chimti
-Original Message-
From: Enver ALTIN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: zaterdag 21 oktober 2006 16:29
To: Stipe Tolj
Cc: devel@kannel.org
Subject: Release process
On Sat, 2006-10-21 at 14:33 +0200, Stipe Tolj wrote:
