Re: [PATCH] (sqlbox) sqlbox.patch

Good one, Alex
Adding bearerbox-port to smsbox group should be a good solution.
I'll follow that way.

Stipe, I'm waiting for your "sceleton build environment".

Martin.
On 6/14/06, Alexander Malysh <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> why not simple define port in smsbox group always. so it would be
> possible: a) easier split bearerbox smsbox on different hosts w/o a need
> to define core group; b) tell smsbox to connect to any port also to sqlbox
>
> Anyway we have bearerbox-host config variable already in place, so just
> add bearerbox-port to smsbox group. That's it...
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
> Mi Reflejo schrieb:
> > Hi Stipe,
> >
> > On 6/14/06, Stipe Tolj <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> that's a problem indeed. AFAIU the smsbox connects to the sqlbox
> >> rather then the
> >> bearerbox port. So sqlbox acts (from the view of smsbox) as bearerbox.
> >>
> >> Ok, that's why you guys need to seperate and add the config. But I
> >> think you
> >> should use a different .conf file for sqlbox, where the "normal
> >> bearerbox port"
> >> is set addequate to reflect the sqlbox(bearerbox)-port. This is a
> >> benefit, since
> >> it doesn't require to patch smsbox at all. Right?
> >>
> >> So, using 2 configs with core groups different for bearerbox port
> >> would solve
> >> the smsbox patching need.
> >>
> >
> > I don't see how a different config file *only* for sqlbox will solve
> > anything since smsbox is who needs bearerbox port to connect. If we
> > use a different .conf file *only* for sqlbox, smsbox would still
> > connecting to original bearerbox-port.
> >
> > If we take this way, maybe a very ugly solution is to start smsbox and
> > sqlbox with one config file and bearerbox with other but i don't like
> > this way.
> >
> > M
> >
> >
>
>
>