Re: [RFC] --disable-panics configuration option

And I cannot agree more, actually. But auditing takes time. Until
it is done, --disable-panics will be of some use.

Aarno

On 16.3.2005, at 18:09, Pommnitz, Jörg wrote:

> But this just confirms what I wrote: such a panic is obviously
> inappropriate and should be replaced by a warning. So, I stand by
> what I wrote earlier: just audit the panics and make sure Kannel
> panics in only *REALLY* hopeless situations. This would IMHO be
> the Right Thing (TM) to do.
>
> Regards
>   Joerg
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Jonathan Houser [mailto:[email protected]]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. März 2005 17:52
> An: Aarno Syvänen
> Cc: Kannel list
> Betreff: Re: [RFC] --disable-panics configuration option
>
>
>
> 	  Aarno,
>
>> There actually seems to two kinds of panic:
>>
>> a) Configuration errors. In this case, continuation really is 
>> impossible.
>> b) Libs has some sanity checks that cause panic. If we just have a 
>> broken
>>      message, we must just ignore message, not panic.
>
>       I would like it if a panic just wrote the appropriate lines to 
> the
> log (for debugging) and kept on running.  The panic's I've seen were 
> for
> things that pertained to a WDP message from some phone on the WAP
> gateway.  If that one phone doesn't get his fetch handled, oh well, we
> should log that we had a problem and keep on running.  So I like the
> idea you've proposed.  It'd allow everyone to work through issues
> without having a wrapper script work overtime.
>
> Jon
>
>