RE: [PATCH] (sqlbox) sqlbox.patch

Alex, this is why Kannel needs you :)...
Agreeing here.

Rene Kluwen
Chimit


-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
Behalf Of Alexander Malysh
Sent: woensdag 14 juni 2006 17:37
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] (sqlbox) sqlbox.patch


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
> 
>