Re: [Kannel-Devel] Re: Kannel is suffering

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Jørgen Thomsen wrote:

> should [Kannel] be a framework to handle several protocols as
> 'abstracted' as possible but with provisions for handling all aspects of
> a specific protocol.
>
> In my view the latter is a much more useful and challenging point of view.

  +1.  While I agree with Stipe that abstraction is good, and that abstraction
  makes it easier to add new types of services to kannel in the future,
  I also agree strongly with Jørgen that there are valuable specifics for
  each protocol that many users find either useful or practically necessary.

  I think if a protocol-based abstraction, rather than a full kannel-wide
  abstraction (where reasonable), such as taking a step back from
  carrier-specific tags in a deliver_sm and abstracting to the basics -- an
  offset + a length within the PDU, I think kannel can become "more powerful
  than you could ever imagine."

Beckman (with Darth)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Beckman                                                  Internet Guy
[email protected]                             http://www.purplecow.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------