Re: [PATCH] (sqlbox) sqlbox.patch

I'm +1 for Rene-Alex.
If bearerbox-host is part of smsbox group there is no reason for
exclude the port.
And i'm still thinking that 1-to-N architecture is no necessary broken
taking this way.


M

On 6/14/06, Rene Kluwen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Okay... here's my 2 cts...
>
> I disagree with you, Stipe.
> smsbox needs to connect to the/a bearerbox. So the bearerbox-port should be
> a configuration parameter of smsbox.
>
> I will give you some logic:
>
> 1. smsbox connects to the tuple (bearerbox-host:bearerbox-port)
> 2. bearerbox-host is a configuration parameter of smsbox
> 3. ergo => bearerbox-port should be as well
>
> The core group is designed to serve bearerbox.
> A way-out-of-line argument for this is the use of smsbox for something
> completely different than connecting to the bearerbox.
> I leave possible uses to the creativity of the reader.
> smsbox -in this light- is a stand alone application. Not related to
> bearerbox at all.
>
> Conclusion:
>
> Both in the perspective of the user as well as in an architectural view,
> group = smsbox might contain a bearerbox-port value.
>
> Okay... so far the logic... I am self-respecting enough to come up with a
> possible solution.
>
> How about we inherit bearerbox-port from group = core BUT can be overridden
> by the same entry in group = smsbox.
> So the core section is only used if the same parameter in smsbox is omitted.
> This way, we also stay downward compatible. And everybody will be happy!
>
> Comments?
>
> Maybe I can raving too far here. But we can even make this a "general rule".
> Taking mutual parameters in group = core when not found in group = smsbox,
> wapbox, etc.
> I actually do this in other software.
>
> Rene Kluwen
> Chimit
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
> Behalf Of Stipe Tolj
> Sent: donderdag 15 juni 2006 2:33
> To: Mi Reflejo
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] (sqlbox) sqlbox.patch
>
>
> Mi Reflejo wrote:
>
> > Good one, Alex
> > Adding bearerbox-port to smsbox group should be a good solution.
> > I'll follow that way.
>
> nop, I'm -0 on this... see my response on the other mail for argues.
>
> Alex argues that smsbox would be "runnable" without core group... now, that
> doesn't make sense in the current architecture. smsbox can't be running
> without
> bearerbox. It's a "I hook into an upstream box"-box and hence needs to have
> a
> connection to bearerbox. And that's why a core group is always semantically
> necessary.
>
> _If_ the smsbox could run without bearerbox, meaning you would launch it,
> and on
> the HTTP application layer side it could do things without having at the
> operational time a link to bearerbox, then the approach would make sense.
> But
> that's not the case.
>
> I recall again the 1-to-N architecture we have here for
> bearerbox(1)<->smsbox(N)
> connections.
>
> > Stipe, I'm waiting for your "sceleton build environment".
>
> yep, preparing.... we're in WorldCup feaver... so things need more time ;)
>
> Stipe
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Kölner Landstrasse 419
> 40589 Düsseldorf, NRW, Germany
>
> tolj.org system architecture      Kannel Software Foundation (KSF)
> http://www.tolj.org/              http://www.kannel.org/
>
> mailto:st_{at}_tolj.org           mailto:stolj_{at}_kannel.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>