Re: DATAGRAM MODE

Hey,

On Mon, 2005-08-29 at 12:05 +0200, Alejandro Guerrieri wrote:
> Count me in! (Now it's 2 Alejandro's ;) ) I've had to change the darn
> ESM_CLASS to DEFAULT about a thousand times :)

I think general consensus is to prevent adding SMSC-specific parameters
to the sendsms interface, so I think this patch is a bit controversial
and needs to be properly designed before it gets committed.

Maybe we can introduce a generic-purpose field and use it for passing
SMSC-specific parameters to the SMSCConn via sendsms? Maybe we can just
let it in, and change the behavior later? I'm not really sure which way
is better.

Hmm...
-- 
.O.
..O   Enver ALTIN                   |   http://skyblue.gen.tr/
OOO   Software developer @ Parkyeri | http://www.parkyeri.com/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBDFvWoZCB2FZvqK0sRAiuJAJ454f4EkobRSdQVnIsCihm26oNp1wCdEIFQ
uG9b7clG30fHLAYESMopXwg=
=Mn0p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----