Re: Making SMPP esm_class configurable?

Thanks Nikos/Alex for the feedback - I will work on config patch.

On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 23:10 +0300, Nikos Balkanas wrote:
> Hi Alan,
> 
> Just to clarify on what Alex says. Some other modes that the SMSc may 
> support in default mode, are:
> 
> Datagram: UDP based, immediate best effort high throughput transmition with 
> no retried, validity period or storage. Similar to UDP.
> Forward: Single transaction based, for real-time applications, i.e. parking 
> tickets, without storage, where result is returned in response.
> 
> Kannel doesn't support those, only reliable store and forward. Therefore the 
> default mode wouldn't be appropriate.
> Configuration would be fine for those buggy SMScs, that do store and 
> forward, but do not accept it as an option.
> 
> BR,
> Nikos
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Alexander Malysh" <[email protected]>
> To: "Alan McNatty" <[email protected]>
> Cc: "Nikos Balkanas" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 12:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Making SMPP esm_class configurable?
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> please don't change default because we want that SMSC _store_ and _forward_ 
> our message that
> is what we also tell SMSC. This works in 99% cases but sometimes buggy SMSCs 
> don't accept this
> and rejects messages.
> 
> Please keep default as is and make config option for buggy SMSCs.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alex
> 
> Am 02.08.2011 um 06:11 schrieb Alan McNatty:
> 
> > Sorry that should be ESM_CLASS_SUBMIT_DEFAULT_SMSC_MODE.
> >
> > Index: gw/smsc/smsc_smpp.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- gw/smsc/smsc_smpp.c (revision 4913)
> > +++ gw/smsc/smsc_smpp.c (working copy)
> > @@ -876,7 +876,7 @@
> >      * set the esm_class field
> >      * default is store and forward, plus udh and rpi if requested
> >      */
> > -    pdu->u.submit_sm.esm_class =
> > ESM_CLASS_SUBMIT_STORE_AND_FORWARD_MODE;
> > +    pdu->u.submit_sm.esm_class = ESM_CLASS_SUBMIT_DEFAULT_SMSC_MODE;
> >     if (octstr_len(msg->sms.udhdata))
> >         pdu->u.submit_sm.esm_class = pdu->u.submit_sm.esm_class |
> >             ESM_CLASS_SUBMIT_UDH_INDICATOR;
> >
> > On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 15:59 +1200, Alan McNatty wrote:
> >> Hi Nikos,
> >>
> >> You mean simply change the default:
> >>
> >> Index: gw/smsc/smsc_smpp.c
> >> ===================================================================
> >> --- gw/smsc/smsc_smpp.c (revision 4913)
> >> +++ gw/smsc/smsc_smpp.c (working copy)
> >> @@ -876,7 +876,7 @@
> >>      * set the esm_class field
> >>      * default is store and forward, plus udh and rpi if requested
> >>      */
> >> -    pdu->u.submit_sm.esm_class =
> >> ESM_CLASS_SUBMIT_STORE_AND_FORWARD_MODE;
> >> +    pdu->u.submit_sm.esm_class = ESM_CLASS_DEFAULT_SMSC_MODE;
> >>     if (octstr_len(msg->sms.udhdata))
> >>         pdu->u.submit_sm.esm_class = pdu->u.submit_sm.esm_class |
> >>             ESM_CLASS_SUBMIT_UDH_INDICATOR;
> >>
> >> Anyone think we should have a config option? Or just happy to run with
> >> he above. I need to test myself but is this likely to be a compatibility
> >> breaker for anyone?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Alan
> >>
> >> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 07:13 +0300, Nikos Balkanas wrote:
> >>> Hi Alan,
> >>>
> >>> According to the spec SMPP 5.0, p 125, 
> >>> ESM_CLASS_SUBMIT_DEFAULT_SMSC_MODE is
> >>> the default esm class. That part should be patched in. As far as making 
> >>> it
> >>> configurable, I have no objections to it. A few people over the years 
> >>> have
> >>> had to manually patch it in.
> >>>
> >>> BR,
> >>> Nikos
> >>> ----- Original Message ----- 
> >>> From: "Alan McNatty" <[email protected]>
> >>> To: <[email protected]>
> >>> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 6:21 AM
> >>> Subject: Making SMPP esm_class configurable?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Hi All,
> >>>>
> >>>> I found a thread on this from back in Feb 2005 (having received a query
> >>>> from provided now myself) .. last word by Alejandro and a lukewarm 
> >>>> (+0 -
> >>>> +1) comment from Stipe about committing if patch provided. I would
> >>>> provide a config patch if anyone would vote in it's favour?
> >>>>
> >>>> Consider:
> >>>>
> >>>> gw/smsc/smsc_smpp.c
> >>>> 875     /*
> >>>> 876      * set the esm_class field
> >>>> 877      * default is store and forward, plus udh and rpi if requested
> >>>> 878      */
> >>>> 879     pdu->u.submit_sm.esm_class =
> >>>> ESM_CLASS_SUBMIT_STORE_AND_FORWARD_MODE;
> >>>>
> >>>> But the 'default' is surely ESM_CLASS_SUBMIT_DEFAULT_SMSC_MODE, no?
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Alan
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>