RE: [patch] add UUID to HTTP headers

Dears at kannel list ,
	So sorry for last reply in this thread , it was by mistake , it was belongs to other thread , please neglect it .

Best regards,
Shabana 

-----Original Message-----
From: devel [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stipe Tolj
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 9:39 PM
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: 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
-------------------------------------------------------------------