Re: [Patch] To add timeouts to SMPP connections

Never one to be precious about these things :)

Alexander - thanks for the code which I've read through and basically
there's a few pros and cons to the two approaches.

1. Aaron/Alex Patch
- simple
- Kannel-esque in style
- not based around SMPP 3.4 protocol recommendations, but rather fixing a
problem
- does achieve the end result

2. Alexander's Patch
- adheres to SMPP 3.4 protocol recommendations
- fairly complex with changes to msg structures to add timing parameters and
a new queue cleaning activity
- however, really is the more accurate approach to the problem
- potential duplicate sending problems with the requeue activity
- default action (in current patch) is to requeue - would suggest as
documentation says to change this to reconnect.

So.. we have three basic choices.

1. Go the smsc_at / smsc_at2 approach and run the two in parallel (not
recommended)
2. Commit the complex patch straight away (potential risk to driver
stability)
3. Settle with the simple patch
4. Get some volunteers to try the complex patch in the field for two weeks
before commiting.

Personally I'd like to do 4., and I'll volunteer one of our connections to
test it. Anyone else join me?

Alex
CTO
Skywire

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan McNatty" <[email protected]>
To: "Alexander Malysh" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Alex Judd" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 11:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Patch] To add timeouts to SMPP connections


> On Tue, 2003-08-19 at 09:45, Alexander Malysh wrote:
> > sorry but Alex's patch is not closely conforms to spec. Please read smpp
v3.4.
> > issue 1.2 page 165.
> > Quote:
> > inactivity_timer - This timer specifies the maximum time lapse allowed
> > between _transactions_ , after which period of inactivity, an SMPP
entity may
> > assume that the session is no longer active.
> >
> > Transactions doesn't mean enquire_link. I seen already some of SMSC's
that
> > doesn't undestand/reply to enquire_link. So this patch will just not
work as
> > expected. My patch doesn't depend on enquire_link and notice every
> > transaction as proposed in smpp spec.
> >
> > Comments please...
>
> Ok - so it's more to do with any transaction rather than simply enquire
> links .. my misinterpretation here - in this case I agree with you.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan
>