Re: [RFT] new store file/spool approach (fixed)

> Comments/votes please!
> 
I did a quick test and seemed to work fine, thanks!
Some comments:
 a) seems like the directory must exist already or bad things happen
 b) should we rename config value it as 'store-dir' or 'store-spool-dir'
   or something?

otherwise +1

> P.S. should we have multiple types of store-file support in kannel? it would
> be easy to add config option like 'store-type=[file|spool]'. what are you
> think about?

What would be the _real_ benefits of using the old 'file'?
If there really are, then yes, but otherwise not - maybe not need
backward compatibility?


PS. Am I the only one who gets a bit annoyed of all the still reserved
memory areas reported when Kannel exits? Back in old times all of those
would have been cleansed... :]


-- 
 &Kalle Marjola ::: Development ::: Helsinki ::: Enpocket