Re: loadable modules ?

On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Stipe Tolj wrote:

> Alexei Pashkovsky wrote:
> >
> > I think idea of having the listening http interface inside bearerbox instead
> > of running two executables could be usefull too.
> > Obviously this should be configurable ..
>
> that's not how Lars designed it.

No, but he has also said that the entire architecture should be re-thinked
now when more the exact 'goal' is better known (ref: a conversation
with him a few minutes ago)  - similar reason why I did merge smsbox
and bearerbox last summer, but which was a bit too drastic modification
to the main project.

As a sidenote, old Kannel had an option of having "thread" smsbox, i.e.
instead of sending messages to seperate executable they were handled
inside bearerbox. When the message queue/flow system was redesigned, I was
too lazy to re-write that thread version... (althought actually it was so
simple that instead of callin some write_to_box function the message was
just put directly to receive queue...)

So, it should be quite simple to re-implement 'thread' smsbox even if a
separate smsbox is kept... (but I still feel that the advantages gained
 from that is far  less than the extra problems caused, especially with
 DLR's etc... Kannel is anyway faster than normal HTTP servers or SMS
 center connections.. and that protocol between bearerbox and smsbox is
 not that faster than HTTP protocol...)

PS: Loadable modules: a great idea

-- 
                  &kalle marjola