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

Am 25.02.2009 um 17:33 schrieb Nikos Balkanas:

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

Pros: handling at one place in dlr_add and killing of if(dlr_enabled)  
in each smsc module + works for all modules without extra code
Cons: function call (but how much costs a function call? ;) )

>
>
> 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
>>> --------------------------------
>>>
>>
>