I've actually implemented in Kannel the ability to give smsbox a raw PDU (X-Kannel-PDU parameter) for it to send and to get from Kannel the raw PDU of a received message (I chose %x because %p %d and %u were already taken). I even implemented it so if X-Kannel-To is present with X-Kannel-PDU it will replace the outgoing number in the PDU with the number in the X-Kannel-To parameter, sort of a forwarding mechanism without requiring the holder of the PDU to know how to change the number in the PDU.
I haven't submitted my changes back to the list because I wasn't sure how many others would find it useful. If others chime in that it would be handy I suppose I could work up the diffs and send them as a patch. I'll also need to bring the files that changed up to date with CVS as these changes were done to 1.4.0 and I'm behind in my patches. Also I'd want someone more familiar with the code to examine my mods to make sure they're not just naïve tweaks that are incomplete and don't take into account the big picture and all possible uses. I only use bearerbox and smsbox so I'm not sure if there are any repercussions of this for wapbox. J.R.(Sydd)Souza -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Nikola Goran Cutura Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 1:52 PM To: [email protected] Subject: What about PDU? - Re: SMPP 3.4 Optional params Besides Kannel's intention to abstract specific protocols, I believe that passing complete PDU would have great value, too. People not familiar with protocols find great value in being able to use Kannel's abstractions but developers faimiliar with protocols (like myself) may feel better parsing and composing PDUs on their own. This specific case with SMPP optional headers is a very good use case. There is a need NOW for optional headers. However, Kannel has its own architecture and some time has to be spent to design the necessary changes in generic fashion. Meanwhile, users would use ability to construct PDU and send it via Kannel. After the implementation, users would switch to Kannel's generic way of dealing with optional parameters as it is always better to use Kannel's generic features than to reinvent them. To summarize my suggestion, I would like to have possibility to obtain PDU either as '%some_letter" or in HTTP header from Kannel when receiving and to be able to specify PDU to Kannel when sending. smsc-id would give the information on protocol since each configured smsc connection has also protocol specified and PDU would be given as array of bytes.. Would it be hard to implement in Kannel? Regards, NGC
