Re: [PATCH] Guaranteed throughput smsc-independent

Hi,

I actually didn't realise that bb_smsccon_sent is a callback, and kept 
mixing it up with smscconn_sent. Plus you state that each SMSc connection 
has its own thread, and Donald agrees. That's much better. You shouldn't 
have to explain it, I should have known better.

I am a wap person and haven't been involved with SMS that much. I would need 
to study the architecture better at this point, before sticking my foot in 
my mouth again.

BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Damian Viano" <[email protected]>
To: "Nikos Balkanas" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Donald Jackson" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Guaranteed throughput smsc-independent


> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:20:11AM +0300, Nikos Balkanas wrote:
>> Actually, I don't think that even this patch can guarantee solid 
>> throughput.
>> All I/O (including SMSc) is handled by a polling thread. AFAIK
>> bb_smscconn_sent just puts the sms in the connection queue, where the
>
> What? No. bb_smscconn_sent just account for a sent sms and generate the
> corresponding DLR, AND is an MUST callback for the smsc after a successful 
> send
> of a message which is the reason that motivated me to assume that the smsc
> sender thread will call this function (confirmed by the fakesmsc).
>
>> connection layer takes over and sends it. If there is a queue for that 
>> SMSc,
>> the connection layer will still try to empty it as fast as it can.
>>
>> IMHO, any robust throughput should be implemented in the connection 
>> layer.
>
> The idea behind this patch is to avoid implementing it for every 
> connection,
> without loosing the fact that the affected layer is the connection layer.
> That's exactly the reason I choose this callback to do the sleeping and no
> other part.
>
>> BR,
>> Nikos
>
> I hope I clarified your doubts about my patch, and I welcome any further 
> input.
>
> Thanks for your point of view, I think I failed to inform better why this 
> is
> supposed to work and your mail make me write it a lot clearer (I hope!).
>
> DamiΞ±n Viano(Des).