RE: A DLR question

Hi Andrea. 

About the DLRs - it's really bothering me, so I would appreciate it if
you could please notify me of your findings. 
I still think that all DLRs should be handled by dlr.c - though I admit
that doing dlr_add() and then dlr_find() right on top of that is not
nice. maybe we should have a dlr_create(), or have dlr_add() also
generate a new Msg* .

in the mean time, I submit my patch against dlr.c (don't remember if
I've done it already), and I hope you will consider it for CVS.

TIA

Oded Arbel
m-Wise Inc.
[email protected]

--
No Operation Plan ever survives initial contact.
	-- Finagle's Military Laws n°117


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andreas Fink [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 11:38 AM
> To: Oded Arbel
> Subject: RE: A DLR question
> 
> 
> >  > -----Original Message-----
> >>
> >>  >Well, actually.. that's what I'm doing :-/ .
> >>  >So, to rephrase my question - how do I create a DLR on an
> >>  SMSC_FAIL or
> >>  >SMSC_SUCCESS, w/o calling dlr_add/dlr_find ?
> >>  >from looking at emi2, that's exactly what's happening - 
> first it does
> >>  >dlr_add (for SMSC_*) and later does dlr_find on them. of 
> course, it
> >>  >makes much more sense how it happens in the emi2 code, then
> >>  in my code
> >>  >where I call dlr_add only to call dlr_find in the next statement.
> >>
> >>  8 and 16 are generated in EMI driver and never passed on to dlr.c.
> >>  The message is internally generated and passed back to
> >>  bearerbox/smsbox and is not generated by dlr_find (it 
> cant find those
> >>  messages ever).
> >
> >Well - from reading the emi2 sources (couldn't find anything 
> about DLR
> >in emi), it seems to me that the driver does generate the 
> SMSC_* DLRs by
> >using dlr_add/dlr_find, and here's the code snippets :
> 
> yes its emi2 only. I think we can start dropping the old "emi" 
> driver. No real use for it anymore.
> 
> 
> >	if (msg->sms.dlr_mask & 0x18) {
> ><snip>
> >	    dlr_add(octstr_get_cstr(conn->id),
> >		    octstr_get_cstr(ts),
> >		    octstr_get_cstr(emimsg->fields[E50_ADC]),
> >		    octstr_get_cstr(msg->sms.service),
> >		    octstr_get_cstr(msg->sms.dlr_url),
> >		    msg->sms.dlr_mask);
> >(0x18 being, of course, SMSC_FAIL and SMSC_SUCCESS)
> >and then :
> >	dlrmsg = dlr_find(octstr_get_cstr(conn->id),
> >		  octstr_get_cstr(ts), /* timestamp */
> >		  octstr_get_cstr(origmsg->sms.receiver), /* destination
> >*/
> >		  (octstr_get_char(emimsg->fields[0], 0) == 'A' ?
> >		   DLR_SMSC_SUCCESS : DLR_SMSC_FAIL));
> 
> 
> 
> Youre right. This however is completely wrong in my eyes. it should 
> report  values DLR_SUCCESS (0x01) and DLR_FAIL (0x02).
> 
> I take a deeper look into this as there's a bug to be fixed.
> 
> 
> >I would really appreciate it if you can point me to where exactly the
> >EMI driver generates the SMSC_* DLRs internally, as in my current
> >implementation the generation of those DLRs is done calling 
> dlr_add and
> >immediately dlr_find, which as you stated - is not the best 
> approach ;-)
> >
> 
> Hmm. go back a few revisions before the send loop was changed and 
> you'll find it.
>