Re: Future of Kannel

On 14 Nov 2006, at 14:28, Andreas Fink wrot
>>>> e
>
>
>>>> e) MMSC??? ... which some of us have already.
>
> MMSC is not really the same as the goal of Kannel even though  
> Kannel can be a helper there. Furthermore there are not many  
> demands for MMSC's as most operators block access to their MMSC  
> network so a non operator can not make use of it.
>
>
>>>> f) IMPS???
>
> What's that?

Instant Messaging and Presence Service. It used to be Nokia Wireless  
Village, but now it is developed by OMA
Used, as name implies for IM with mobile phones

>>>
>
>>> I guess the biggest win would be a whole lot more readable and much
>>> smaller codebase, we could get more people involved because not
>>> everybody loves to code in C these days, and also it would be a bit
>>> easier to maintain.
>
> I disagree on this one. Not everyone talks Java neither. And  
> there's not less code. Thats for sure.

I am converting A SIP Client using Kannel gwlib to objective C.  
Curious thing is, how one to one the
transformation is. Note that Kannel is already quite object oriented,  
even though it is writeen in C.

>> .
>
>> and what about the patch for setting the sender in Wap Push
>> I got my Kannel patched to do so, with a patch provided on the  
>> list, but why don't add that patch or functionality to Kannel??
>> it's something it doesn't have sense not to have...
>
> I didnt follow that patch but setting the sender in a wap push  
> makes sense and as far as I know it worked in the past simply by  
> &from=...
> I'm sure if you provided a patch it wont get rejected because no  
> one wants to have that feature. Most of the time no one had time to  
> add it or voting never happened.

Yep. Perhaps we should all at least comment the patch on the general  
level.

Aarno

>