Re: [patch] add UUID to HTTP headers

Am 22.06.15 10:28, schrieb Alexander Malysh:
> Hi,
>
> maybe you are right, but for your scenario we already have some other
> routing things in place.
> If one provider is slow, then just define preferred smsc and low queue
> size, then kannel will send
> automatically via second provider without a need to delete and re-inject
> message again.

agreeing from a architectural point of view to Alex here. The concept is 
to inject the MT to Kannel as "integrated trasport layer", and let that 
layer care (route) about where the messages goes. The configuration of 
the routes determines the routing. It SHOULD NOT be the external calling 
entity that "interrupts" the message and re-injects.

Well, that's the theory. In real-life scenarios you sometimes hit the 
border to that theoretical aspect and want to break through with 
something like the delete and re-inject approach.

So it's a +0 I guess.

> What is disturbing in this implementation that we copy headers for each
> message and this is costly…
> Any chance to provide copy free implementation?

agree again, an identifier passing without copying would be desirable.

Stipe

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Koelner Landstrasse 419
40589 Düsseldorf, NRW, Germany

tolj.org system architecture      Kannel Software Foundation (KSF)
http://www.tolj.org/              http://www.kannel.org/

mailto:st_{at}_tolj.org           mailto:stolj_{at}_kannel.org
-------------------------------------------------------------------