Re: [PATCH] SMPP: With dlr-mask=24, foreign_id is not set

Hi Alex,

I think that in such case it would be an extra function call and the 
architecture would be less obvious.

Nikos
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alexander Malysh" <[email protected]>
To: "Arne K. Haaje" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SMPP: With dlr-mask=24, foreign_id is not set


> Hi Arne,
>
> maybe changing dlr_add function would be better?
>
> change dlr_add to check:
>     /* check if delivery receipt requested */
>     if (!DLR_IS_ENABLED_DEVICE(msg->sms.dlr_mask))
>         return;
>
> and then all smsc modules can just call dlr_add without a check?
>
> Or can someone imagine that we want save dlr in store for 
> DLR_SMSC_[SUCCESS|FAIL] ?
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>
> Am 25.02.2009 um 14:43 schrieb Arne K. Haaje:
>
>> message_id is set to NULL for DLR_SMSC_FAIL, so foreign id would not  be 
>> set
>> then.
>>
>> For success the patch ensures the foreign id is logged to access log  and 
>> sent
>> to the dlr-url.
>>
>> I used create_dlr_from_msg instead of dlr_add, as dlr_add would  create a 
>> DLR
>> which would not be removed by receiving a final DLR.
>>
>> We have been running with the patch on a couple high-volume  connections 
>> for 6
>> days now, and I have noticed no issues.
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Only in the case of DLR_SMSC_SUCCESS, not in DLR_SMSC_FAIL. I would 
>>> still
>>> prefer not to create DLRs all over the place but have a single  dlr_add 
>>> for
>>> all.
>>>
>>> Nevertheless this has nothing to do with your patch. +1.
>>>
>>> BR,
>>> Nikos
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Arne K. Haaje" <[email protected]>
>>> To: "Nikos Balkanas" <[email protected]>
>>> Cc: <[email protected]>
>>> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 5:20 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] SMPP: With dlr-mask=24, foreign_id is not set
>>>
>>>> Yes,
>>>>
>>>> bb_smscconn_sent(smpp->conn, msg, NULL) (just outside context in the
>>>> patch)
>>>> sends this using create_dlr_from_msg, so avoids creating a dlr with
>>>> dlr_add.
>>>>
>>>> On Torsdag 19 februar 2009 16:11:47 Nikos Balkanas wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not sure I understand this. With dlr-mask=24 you are asking  DLRs
>>>>> only
>>>>> for SMSC_SUCCESS or SMSC_FAIL. You are not asking DLRs for overall
>>>>> success
>>>>> or fail. To get  even dlr-url called, you need to have a dlr. Yet  for
>>>>> all other cases (0x07) code calls dlr_add but not for 0x18 (24).   Are
>>>>> you getting a DLR at all?
>>>>>
>>>>> BR,
>>>>> Nikos
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Arne K. Haaje" <[email protected]>
>>>>> To: <[email protected]>
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 4:51 PM
>>>>> Subject: [PATCH] SMPP: With dlr-mask=24, foreign_id is not set
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you have dlr-mask=24, to only receive ACK or NACK, then 
>>>>>> foreign_id
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> set on the dlr-url for %F when receiving ACK from the operator.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This small patch should set it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Arne
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> --------------------------------
>>>>>> Arne K. Haaje | www.drx.no
>>>>>> T: 69 51 15 52 | M: 92 88 44 66
>>>>>> --------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --------------------------------
>>>> Arne K. Haaje | www.drx.no
>>>> T: 69 51 15 52 | M: 92 88 44 66
>>>> --------------------------------
>>
>> -- 
>> --------------------------------
>> Arne K. Haaje | www.drx.no
>> T: 69 51 15 52 | M: 92 88 44 66
>> --------------------------------
>>
>
>