DLR counters on the status page

[Alejandro Guerrieri-2]

This patch adds separate dlr counters on the status page. This is much clearer than now imho, where we have dlr's and mo's mixed on the same counter.

For example:

...

SMS: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, dlr (0.23,0.12,0.12) msg/sec, outbound (0.12,0.06,0.06) msg/sec

...

SMSC connections:

    fake[fake]    FAKE:10000 (online 109s, rcvd 0, dlr 14, sent 7, failed 0, queued 0 msgs)

http://www.blogalex.com/archives/222

Regards,

--

Alejandro Guerrieri

aguerrieri@...

[Nikos Balkanas-2]

Some parts of this message have been removed. Learn more about Nabble's security policy.

Looks good!

 

+1

 

Nikos

----- Original Message -----

From: aguerrieri@...

To: devel@...

Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 4:40 PM

Subject: DLR counters on the status page

This patch adds separate dlr counters on the status page. This is much clearer than now imho, where we have dlr's and mo's mixed on the same counter.

For example:

...

SMS: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, dlr (0.23,0.12,0.12) msg/sec, outbound (0.12,0.06,0.06) msg/sec

...

SMSC connections:

    fake[fake]    FAKE:10000 (online 109s, rcvd 0, dlr 14, sent 7, failed 0, queued 0 msgs)

http://www.blogalex.com/archives/222

Regards,

--

Alejandro Guerrieri

aguerrieri@...

[Vincent CHAVANIS-2]

Hi alejandro,

This patch make sense to me
but looks incomplete on the contrib stuffs.
IMO, kannel-monitor should also be patched to support this

Vincent.


Alejandro Guerrieri a écrit :

> This patch adds separate dlr counters on the status page. This is much
> clearer than now imho, where we have dlr's and mo's mixed on the same
> counter.
>
> For example:
>
> ...
>
> SMS: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, *dlr (0.23,0.12,0.12) msg/sec*,
> outbound (0.12,0.06,0.06) msg/sec
>
> ...
>
> SMSC connections:
>
>     *fake*[fake]    FAKE:10000 (online 109s, rcvd 0, *dlr 14*, sent 7,
> failed 0, queued 0 msgs)
>
>
> http://www.blogalex.com/archives/222
>

[Alejandro Guerrieri-2]

Please see attached.

It adds the new dlr fields, and also:

1. Adds the admin-id field on the SMSC list.
2. It replaces $HTTP_GET_VARS (very outdated) with $_REQUEST.

Regards,
--
Alejandro Guerrieri
aguerrieri@...




On 06/11/2009, at 23:17, Vincent CHAVANIS wrote:

> Hi alejandro,
>
> This patch make sense to me
> but looks incomplete on the contrib stuffs.
> IMO, kannel-monitor should also be patched to support this
>
> Vincent.
>
>
> Alejandro Guerrieri a écrit :
>> This patch adds separate dlr counters on the status page. This is  
>> much clearer than now imho, where we have dlr's and mo's mixed on  
>> the same counter.
>> For example:
>> ...
>> SMS: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, *dlr (0.23,0.12,0.12) msg/
>> sec*, outbound (0.12,0.06,0.06) msg/sec
>> ...
>> SMSC connections:
>>    *fake*[fake]    FAKE:10000 (online 109s, rcvd 0, *dlr 14*, sent  
>> 7, failed 0, queued 0 msgs)
>> http://www.blogalex.com/archives/222
>

[Vincent CHAVANIS-2]

tested and work as expected.

++1

Vincent.


Alejandro Guerrieri a écrit :

> This patch adds separate dlr counters on the status page. This is much
> clearer than now imho, where we have dlr's and mo's mixed on the same
> counter.
>
> For example:
>
> ...
>
> SMS: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, *dlr (0.23,0.12,0.12) msg/sec*,
> outbound (0.12,0.06,0.06) msg/sec
>
> ...
>
> SMSC connections:
>
>     *fake*[fake]    FAKE:10000 (online 109s, rcvd 0, *dlr 14*, sent 7,
> failed 0, queued 0 msgs)
>
>
> http://www.blogalex.com/archives/222
>
> Regards,
> --
> Alejandro Guerrieri
> aguerrieri@... <mailto:aguerrieri@...>
>
>
>

[Vincent CHAVANIS-2]

tested,

++1 also for this patch


Alejandro Guerrieri a écrit :

> Please see attached.
>
> It adds the new dlr fields, and also:
>
> 1. Adds the admin-id field on the SMSC list.
> 2. It replaces $HTTP_GET_VARS (very outdated) with $_REQUEST.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Alejandro Guerrieri
> aguerrieri@...
>

[Stipe Tolj]

Alejandro Guerrieri schrieb:

> This patch adds separate dlr counters on the status page. This is much
> clearer than now imho, where we have dlr's and mo's mixed on the same
> counter.
>
> For example:
>
> ...
>
> SMS: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, *dlr (0.23,0.12,0.12) msg/sec*,
> outbound (0.12,0.06,0.06) msg/sec
>
> ...
>
> SMSC connections:
>
>     *fake*[fake]    FAKE:10000 (online 109s, rcvd 0, *dlr 14*, sent 7,
> failed 0, queued 0 msgs)
>
>
> http://www.blogalex.com/archives/222

yep, I'm in... +0 from my side.

Stipe

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kölner 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
-------------------------------------------------------------------

[Alejandro Guerrieri-2]

Any objections? Can I commit?

Regards,
--
Alejandro Guerrieri
aguerrieri@...



On 10/11/2009, at 15:46, Stipe Tolj wrote:

> Alejandro Guerrieri schrieb:
>> This patch adds separate dlr counters on the status page. This is  
>> much
>> clearer than now imho, where we have dlr's and mo's mixed on the same
>> counter.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> SMS: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, *dlr (0.23,0.12,0.12) msg/
>> sec*,
>> outbound (0.12,0.06,0.06) msg/sec
>>
>> ...
>>
>> SMSC connections:
>>
>>    *fake*[fake]    FAKE:10000 (online 109s, rcvd 0, *dlr 14*, sent 7,
>> failed 0, queued 0 msgs)
>>
>>
>> http://www.blogalex.com/archives/222
>
> yep, I'm in... +0 from my side.
>
> Stipe
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Kölner 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
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

[Alexander Malysh]

Hi Alex,

I think we have to expand this patch to handle incoming and outgoing DLRs.
Now we don't differentiate DLRs from SMS traffic and therefore this is not a issue.
But if we start to differentiate DLRs from SMS we need to split it to incoming/outgoing
the same as for SMS traffic.

Thanks,
Alexander Malysh

Am 11.11.2009 um 08:13 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:

> Any objections? Can I commit?
>
> Regards,
> --
> Alejandro Guerrieri
> aguerrieri@...
>
>
>
> On 10/11/2009, at 15:46, Stipe Tolj wrote:
>
>> Alejandro Guerrieri schrieb:
>>> This patch adds separate dlr counters on the status page. This is much
>>> clearer than now imho, where we have dlr's and mo's mixed on the same
>>> counter.
>>>
>>> For example:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> SMS: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, *dlr (0.23,0.12,0.12) msg/sec*,
>>> outbound (0.12,0.06,0.06) msg/sec
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> SMSC connections:
>>>
>>>   *fake*[fake]    FAKE:10000 (online 109s, rcvd 0, *dlr 14*, sent 7,
>>> failed 0, queued 0 msgs)
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.blogalex.com/archives/222
>>
>> yep, I'm in... +0 from my side.
>>
>> Stipe
>>
>> --
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Kölner 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
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>

[Nikos Balkanas]

Hi,

Outgoing DLRs? Could you elaborate?

AFAIK even now we have HTTP relaying, FAKE and smsc proxying. Reroute-dlr is
differentiating dlrs from sms traffic in the last case. But somehow i don't
think that this is what you have in mind. Are you thinking of turning kannel
to SMSc?

BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Malysh" <amalysh@...>
To: "Alejandro Guerrieri" <aguerrieri@...>
Cc: "Kannel Devel" <devel@...>
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: DLR counters on the status page


Hi Alex,

I think we have to expand this patch to handle incoming and outgoing DLRs.
Now we don't differentiate DLRs from SMS traffic and therefore this is not a
issue.
But if we start to differentiate DLRs from SMS we need to split it to
incoming/outgoing
the same as for SMS traffic.

Thanks,
Alexander Malysh

Am 11.11.2009 um 08:13 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:

> Any objections? Can I commit?
>
> Regards,
> --
> Alejandro Guerrieri
> aguerrieri@...
>
>
>
> On 10/11/2009, at 15:46, Stipe Tolj wrote:
>
>> Alejandro Guerrieri schrieb:
>>> This patch adds separate dlr counters on the status page. This is much
>>> clearer than now imho, where we have dlr's and mo's mixed on the same
>>> counter.
>>>
>>> For example:
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> SMS: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, *dlr (0.23,0.12,0.12) msg/sec*,
>>> outbound (0.12,0.06,0.06) msg/sec
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> SMSC connections:
>>>
>>>   *fake*[fake]    FAKE:10000 (online 109s, rcvd 0, *dlr 14*, sent 7,
>>> failed 0, queued 0 msgs)
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.blogalex.com/archives/222
>>
>> yep, I'm in... +0 from my side.
>>
>> Stipe
>>
>> --
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Kφlner Landstrasse 419
>> 40589 Dόsseldorf, 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
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>

[Alejandro Guerrieri-2]

Alex,

Outgoing DLR's? At least on SMPP, there's not such a thing: when you  
submit an MT with dlr-mask/dlr-url set, the submit_sm PDU has the  
delivery receipt flag set. When the message is accepted (the SMSC  
sends a submit_sm_resp), kannel creates a first incoming DLR and later  
on the SMSC sends one incoming (deliver_sm) DLR (or more, if  
intermediate DLR's are enabled) with the message status(es).

What do you mean with "outgoing DLR's" ?

Regards,
--
Alejandro Guerrieri
aguerrieri@...



On 11/11/2009, at 9:36, Alexander Malysh wrote:

> Hi Alex,
>
> I think we have to expand this patch to handle incoming and outgoing  
> DLRs.
> Now we don't differentiate DLRs from SMS traffic and therefore this  
> is not a issue.
> But if we start to differentiate DLRs from SMS we need to split it  
> to incoming/outgoing
> the same as for SMS traffic.
>
> Thanks,
> Alexander Malysh
>
> Am 11.11.2009 um 08:13 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>
>> Any objections? Can I commit?
>>
>> Regards,
>> --
>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>> aguerrieri@...
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/11/2009, at 15:46, Stipe Tolj wrote:
>>
>>> Alejandro Guerrieri schrieb:
>>>> This patch adds separate dlr counters on the status page. This is  
>>>> much
>>>> clearer than now imho, where we have dlr's and mo's mixed on the  
>>>> same
>>>> counter.
>>>>
>>>> For example:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> SMS: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, *dlr (0.23,0.12,0.12) msg/
>>>> sec*,
>>>> outbound (0.12,0.06,0.06) msg/sec
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> SMSC connections:
>>>>
>>>>  *fake*[fake]    FAKE:10000 (online 109s, rcvd 0, *dlr 14*, sent 7,
>>>> failed 0, queued 0 msgs)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.blogalex.com/archives/222
>>>
>>> yep, I'm in... +0 from my side.
>>>
>>> Stipe
>>>
>>> --
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Kölner 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
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Alexander Malysh]

Am 11.11.2009 um 10:10 schrieb Nikos Balkanas:

> Hi,
>
> Outgoing DLRs? Could you elaborate?
>
> AFAIK even now we have HTTP relaying, FAKE and smsc proxying. Reroute-dlr is differentiating dlrs from sms traffic in the last case. But somehow i don't think that this is what you have in mind. Are you thinking of turning kannel to SMSc?

yes, and it works already...

>
> BR,
> Nikos
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexander Malysh" <amalysh@...>
> To: "Alejandro Guerrieri" <aguerrieri@...>
> Cc: "Kannel Devel" <devel@...>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 10:36 AM
> Subject: Re: DLR counters on the status page
>
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> I think we have to expand this patch to handle incoming and outgoing DLRs.
> Now we don't differentiate DLRs from SMS traffic and therefore this is not a issue.
> But if we start to differentiate DLRs from SMS we need to split it to incoming/outgoing
> the same as for SMS traffic.
>
> Thanks,
> Alexander Malysh
>
> Am 11.11.2009 um 08:13 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>
>> Any objections? Can I commit?
>>
>> Regards,
>> --
>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>> aguerrieri@...
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/11/2009, at 15:46, Stipe Tolj wrote:
>>
>>> Alejandro Guerrieri schrieb:
>>>> This patch adds separate dlr counters on the status page. This is much
>>>> clearer than now imho, where we have dlr's and mo's mixed on the same
>>>> counter.
>>>>
>>>> For example:
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> SMS: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, *dlr (0.23,0.12,0.12) msg/sec*,
>>>> outbound (0.12,0.06,0.06) msg/sec
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> SMSC connections:
>>>>
>>>>  *fake*[fake]    FAKE:10000 (online 109s, rcvd 0, *dlr 14*, sent 7,
>>>> failed 0, queued 0 msgs)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.blogalex.com/archives/222
>>>
>>> yep, I'm in... +0 from my side.
>>>
>>> Stipe
>>>
>>> --
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Kφlner Landstrasse 419
>>> 40589 Dόsseldorf, 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
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Alexander Malysh]

Am 11.11.2009 um 11:38 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:

> Alex,
>
> Outgoing DLR's? At least on SMPP, there's not such a thing: when you submit an MT with dlr-mask/dlr-url set, the submit_sm PDU has the delivery receipt flag set. When the message is accepted (the SMSC sends a submit_sm_resp), kannel creates a first incoming DLR and later on the SMSC sends one incoming (deliver_sm) DLR (or more, if intermediate DLR's are enabled) with the message status(es).
>
> What do you mean with "outgoing DLR's" ?

at least for HTTP smsc we can implement DLR forwarding...

>
> Regards,
> --
> Alejandro Guerrieri
> aguerrieri@...
>
>
>
> On 11/11/2009, at 9:36, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> I think we have to expand this patch to handle incoming and outgoing DLRs.
>> Now we don't differentiate DLRs from SMS traffic and therefore this is not a issue.
>> But if we start to differentiate DLRs from SMS we need to split it to incoming/outgoing
>> the same as for SMS traffic.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alexander Malysh
>>
>> Am 11.11.2009 um 08:13 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>>
>>> Any objections? Can I commit?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> --
>>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>>> aguerrieri@...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/11/2009, at 15:46, Stipe Tolj wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri schrieb:
>>>>> This patch adds separate dlr counters on the status page. This is much
>>>>> clearer than now imho, where we have dlr's and mo's mixed on the same
>>>>> counter.
>>>>>
>>>>> For example:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> SMS: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, *dlr (0.23,0.12,0.12) msg/sec*,
>>>>> outbound (0.12,0.06,0.06) msg/sec
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> SMSC connections:
>>>>>
>>>>> *fake*[fake]    FAKE:10000 (online 109s, rcvd 0, *dlr 14*, sent 7,
>>>>> failed 0, queued 0 msgs)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.blogalex.com/archives/222
>>>>
>>>> yep, I'm in... +0 from my side.
>>>>
>>>> Stipe
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Kölner 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
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Alejandro Guerrieri-2]

Ok, so you'd like the patch to transparently handle the concept of  
"outgoing" dlrs?

It would be useless on many drivers where Kannel's acting as a  
"client" only (SMPP for instance) but yes, on HTTP and derivatives  
would make sense.

Regards,
--
Alejandro Guerrieri
aguerrieri@...



On 11/11/2009, at 11:42, Alexander Malysh wrote:

>
> Am 11.11.2009 um 11:38 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>
>> Alex,
>>
>> Outgoing DLR's? At least on SMPP, there's not such a thing: when  
>> you submit an MT with dlr-mask/dlr-url set, the submit_sm PDU has  
>> the delivery receipt flag set. When the message is accepted (the  
>> SMSC sends a submit_sm_resp), kannel creates a first incoming DLR  
>> and later on the SMSC sends one incoming (deliver_sm) DLR (or more,  
>> if intermediate DLR's are enabled) with the message status(es).
>>
>> What do you mean with "outgoing DLR's" ?
>
> at least for HTTP smsc we can implement DLR forwarding...
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> --
>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>> aguerrieri@...
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/11/2009, at 9:36, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Alex,
>>>
>>> I think we have to expand this patch to handle incoming and  
>>> outgoing DLRs.
>>> Now we don't differentiate DLRs from SMS traffic and therefore  
>>> this is not a issue.
>>> But if we start to differentiate DLRs from SMS we need to split it  
>>> to incoming/outgoing
>>> the same as for SMS traffic.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alexander Malysh
>>>
>>> Am 11.11.2009 um 08:13 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>>>
>>>> Any objections? Can I commit?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> --
>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>>>> aguerrieri@...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/11/2009, at 15:46, Stipe Tolj wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri schrieb:
>>>>>> This patch adds separate dlr counters on the status page. This  
>>>>>> is much
>>>>>> clearer than now imho, where we have dlr's and mo's mixed on  
>>>>>> the same
>>>>>> counter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For example:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SMS: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, *dlr (0.23,0.12,0.12)  
>>>>>> msg/sec*,
>>>>>> outbound (0.12,0.06,0.06) msg/sec
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SMSC connections:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *fake*[fake]    FAKE:10000 (online 109s, rcvd 0, *dlr 14*, sent  
>>>>>> 7,
>>>>>> failed 0, queued 0 msgs)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.blogalex.com/archives/222
>>>>>
>>>>> yep, I'm in... +0 from my side.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stipe
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> Kölner 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
>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Alexander Malysh]

Am 11.11.2009 um 12:09 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:

> Ok, so you'd like the patch to transparently handle the concept of "outgoing" dlrs?

yes that would be great... This is 5 minutes patch :)

>
> It would be useless on many drivers where Kannel's acting as a "client" only (SMPP for instance) but yes, on HTTP and derivatives would make sense.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Alejandro Guerrieri
> aguerrieri@...
>
>
>
> On 11/11/2009, at 11:42, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>
>>
>> Am 11.11.2009 um 11:38 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>>
>>> Alex,
>>>
>>> Outgoing DLR's? At least on SMPP, there's not such a thing: when you submit an MT with dlr-mask/dlr-url set, the submit_sm PDU has the delivery receipt flag set. When the message is accepted (the SMSC sends a submit_sm_resp), kannel creates a first incoming DLR and later on the SMSC sends one incoming (deliver_sm) DLR (or more, if intermediate DLR's are enabled) with the message status(es).
>>>
>>> What do you mean with "outgoing DLR's" ?
>>
>> at least for HTTP smsc we can implement DLR forwarding...
>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> --
>>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>>> aguerrieri@...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/11/2009, at 9:36, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>
>>>> I think we have to expand this patch to handle incoming and outgoing DLRs.
>>>> Now we don't differentiate DLRs from SMS traffic and therefore this is not a issue.
>>>> But if we start to differentiate DLRs from SMS we need to split it to incoming/outgoing
>>>> the same as for SMS traffic.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Alexander Malysh
>>>>
>>>> Am 11.11.2009 um 08:13 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>>>>
>>>>> Any objections? Can I commit?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> --
>>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>>>>> aguerrieri@...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/11/2009, at 15:46, Stipe Tolj wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri schrieb:
>>>>>>> This patch adds separate dlr counters on the status page. This is much
>>>>>>> clearer than now imho, where we have dlr's and mo's mixed on the same
>>>>>>> counter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For example:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SMS: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, *dlr (0.23,0.12,0.12) msg/sec*,
>>>>>>> outbound (0.12,0.06,0.06) msg/sec
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SMSC connections:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *fake*[fake]    FAKE:10000 (online 109s, rcvd 0, *dlr 14*, sent 7,
>>>>>>> failed 0, queued 0 msgs)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.blogalex.com/archives/222
>>>>>>
>>>>>> yep, I'm in... +0 from my side.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stipe
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Kölner 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
>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Alejandro Guerrieri-2]

Done already, testing right now...

--
Alejandro Guerrieri
aguerrieri@...



On 11/11/2009, at 12:33, Alexander Malysh wrote:

>
> Am 11.11.2009 um 12:09 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>
>> Ok, so you'd like the patch to transparently handle the concept of  
>> "outgoing" dlrs?
>
> yes that would be great... This is 5 minutes patch :)
>
>>
>> It would be useless on many drivers where Kannel's acting as a  
>> "client" only (SMPP for instance) but yes, on HTTP and derivatives  
>> would make sense.
>>
>> Regards,
>> --
>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>> aguerrieri@...
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/11/2009, at 11:42, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Am 11.11.2009 um 11:38 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>>>
>>>> Alex,
>>>>
>>>> Outgoing DLR's? At least on SMPP, there's not such a thing: when  
>>>> you submit an MT with dlr-mask/dlr-url set, the submit_sm PDU has  
>>>> the delivery receipt flag set. When the message is accepted (the  
>>>> SMSC sends a submit_sm_resp), kannel creates a first incoming DLR  
>>>> and later on the SMSC sends one incoming (deliver_sm) DLR (or  
>>>> more, if intermediate DLR's are enabled) with the message  
>>>> status(es).
>>>>
>>>> What do you mean with "outgoing DLR's" ?
>>>
>>> at least for HTTP smsc we can implement DLR forwarding...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> --
>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>>>> aguerrieri@...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/11/2009, at 9:36, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we have to expand this patch to handle incoming and  
>>>>> outgoing DLRs.
>>>>> Now we don't differentiate DLRs from SMS traffic and therefore  
>>>>> this is not a issue.
>>>>> But if we start to differentiate DLRs from SMS we need to split  
>>>>> it to incoming/outgoing
>>>>> the same as for SMS traffic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Alexander Malysh
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 11.11.2009 um 08:13 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Any objections? Can I commit?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>>>>>> aguerrieri@...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/11/2009, at 15:46, Stipe Tolj wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri schrieb:
>>>>>>>> This patch adds separate dlr counters on the status page.  
>>>>>>>> This is much
>>>>>>>> clearer than now imho, where we have dlr's and mo's mixed on  
>>>>>>>> the same
>>>>>>>> counter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For example:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> SMS: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, *dlr (0.23,0.12,0.12)  
>>>>>>>> msg/sec*,
>>>>>>>> outbound (0.12,0.06,0.06) msg/sec
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> SMSC connections:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *fake*[fake]    FAKE:10000 (online 109s, rcvd 0, *dlr 14*,  
>>>>>>>> sent 7,
>>>>>>>> failed 0, queued 0 msgs)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.blogalex.com/archives/222
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> yep, I'm in... +0 from my side.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stipe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> Kölner 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
>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Alejandro Guerrieri-2]

Please see attached. I'm adding the patch for the kannel-monitor later.

Regards,
--
Alejandro Guerrieri
aguerrieri@...






On 11/11/2009, at 12:33, Alexander Malysh wrote:

>
> Am 11.11.2009 um 12:09 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>
>> Ok, so you'd like the patch to transparently handle the concept of  
>> "outgoing" dlrs?
>
> yes that would be great... This is 5 minutes patch :)
>
>>
>> It would be useless on many drivers where Kannel's acting as a  
>> "client" only (SMPP for instance) but yes, on HTTP and derivatives  
>> would make sense.
>>
>> Regards,
>> --
>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>> aguerrieri@...
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/11/2009, at 11:42, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Am 11.11.2009 um 11:38 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>>>
>>>> Alex,
>>>>
>>>> Outgoing DLR's? At least on SMPP, there's not such a thing: when  
>>>> you submit an MT with dlr-mask/dlr-url set, the submit_sm PDU has  
>>>> the delivery receipt flag set. When the message is accepted (the  
>>>> SMSC sends a submit_sm_resp), kannel creates a first incoming DLR  
>>>> and later on the SMSC sends one incoming (deliver_sm) DLR (or  
>>>> more, if intermediate DLR's are enabled) with the message  
>>>> status(es).
>>>>
>>>> What do you mean with "outgoing DLR's" ?
>>>
>>> at least for HTTP smsc we can implement DLR forwarding...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> --
>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>>>> aguerrieri@...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/11/2009, at 9:36, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we have to expand this patch to handle incoming and  
>>>>> outgoing DLRs.
>>>>> Now we don't differentiate DLRs from SMS traffic and therefore  
>>>>> this is not a issue.
>>>>> But if we start to differentiate DLRs from SMS we need to split  
>>>>> it to incoming/outgoing
>>>>> the same as for SMS traffic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Alexander Malysh
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 11.11.2009 um 08:13 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Any objections? Can I commit?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>>>>>> aguerrieri@...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/11/2009, at 15:46, Stipe Tolj wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri schrieb:
>>>>>>>> This patch adds separate dlr counters on the status page.  
>>>>>>>> This is much
>>>>>>>> clearer than now imho, where we have dlr's and mo's mixed on  
>>>>>>>> the same
>>>>>>>> counter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For example:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> SMS: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, *dlr (0.23,0.12,0.12)  
>>>>>>>> msg/sec*,
>>>>>>>> outbound (0.12,0.06,0.06) msg/sec
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> SMSC connections:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *fake*[fake]    FAKE:10000 (online 109s, rcvd 0, *dlr 14*,  
>>>>>>>> sent 7,
>>>>>>>> failed 0, queued 0 msgs)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.blogalex.com/archives/222
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> yep, I'm in... +0 from my side.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stipe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> Kölner 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
>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Alexander Malysh]

Hi Alex,

I changed your patch a bit. I hope that it would me more clear for users what the all counters means.

New patch attached...
Please let me know what you think?





Here examples:

        TXT:
Status: running, uptime 0d 0h 0m 9s

WDP: received 0 (0 queued), sent 0 (0 queued)

SMS: received 0 (0 queued), sent 0 (0 queued), store size -1
SMS: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, outbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec

DLR: received 0, sent 0
DLR: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, outbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec
DLR: 0 queued, using internal storage

No boxes connected

SMSC connections:
    FAKE[FAKE]    FAKE:20000 (connecting, rcvd: sms 0 / dlr 0, sent: sms 0 / dlr 0, failed 0, queued 0 msgs)

        XML:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<gateway>
<status>running, uptime 0d 0h 0m 35s</status>
        <wdp>
                <received><total>0</total><queued>0</queued></received>
                <sent><total>0</total><queued>0</queued></sent>
        </wdp>
        <sms>
                <received><total>0</total><queued>0</queued></received>
                <sent><total>0</total><queued>0</queued></sent>
                <storesize>-1</storesize>
                <inbound>0.00,0.00,0.00</inbound>
                <outbound>0.00,0.00,0.00</outbound>
                </sms>
        <dlr>
                <received><total>0</total></received>
                <sent><total>0</total></sent>
                <inbound>0.00,0.00,0.00</inbound>
                <outbound>0.00,0.00,0.00</outbound>
                <queued>0</queued>
                <storage>internal</storage>
        </dlr>
<boxes>
        </boxes>
<smscs><count>1</count>
        <smsc>
                <name>FAKE:20000</name>
                <admin-id>FAKE</admin-id>
                <id>FAKE</id>
                <status>connecting</status>
                <received><sms>0</sms><dlr>0</dlr></received>
                <sent><sms>0</sms><dlr>0</dlr></sent>
                <failed>0</failed>
                <queued>0</queued>
        </smsc>
</smscs>
</gateway>


Am 11.11.2009 um 14:27 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:

> Please see attached. I'm adding the patch for the kannel-monitor later.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Alejandro Guerrieri
> aguerrieri@...
>
>
> <kannel-dlr-status-v2.diff.zip>
>
> On 11/11/2009, at 12:33, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>
>>
>> Am 11.11.2009 um 12:09 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>>
>>> Ok, so you'd like the patch to transparently handle the concept of "outgoing" dlrs?
>>
>> yes that would be great... This is 5 minutes patch :)
>>
>>>
>>> It would be useless on many drivers where Kannel's acting as a "client" only (SMPP for instance) but yes, on HTTP and derivatives would make sense.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> --
>>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>>> aguerrieri@...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/11/2009, at 11:42, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 11.11.2009 um 11:38 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>>>>
>>>>> Alex,
>>>>>
>>>>> Outgoing DLR's? At least on SMPP, there's not such a thing: when you submit an MT with dlr-mask/dlr-url set, the submit_sm PDU has the delivery receipt flag set. When the message is accepted (the SMSC sends a submit_sm_resp), kannel creates a first incoming DLR and later on the SMSC sends one incoming (deliver_sm) DLR (or more, if intermediate DLR's are enabled) with the message status(es).
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you mean with "outgoing DLR's" ?
>>>>
>>>> at least for HTTP smsc we can implement DLR forwarding...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> --
>>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>>>>> aguerrieri@...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/11/2009, at 9:36, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we have to expand this patch to handle incoming and outgoing DLRs.
>>>>>> Now we don't differentiate DLRs from SMS traffic and therefore this is not a issue.
>>>>>> But if we start to differentiate DLRs from SMS we need to split it to incoming/outgoing
>>>>>> the same as for SMS traffic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Alexander Malysh
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 11.11.2009 um 08:13 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any objections? Can I commit?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>>>>>>> aguerrieri@...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/11/2009, at 15:46, Stipe Tolj wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri schrieb:
>>>>>>>>> This patch adds separate dlr counters on the status page. This is much
>>>>>>>>> clearer than now imho, where we have dlr's and mo's mixed on the same
>>>>>>>>> counter.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For example:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> SMS: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, *dlr (0.23,0.12,0.12) msg/sec*,
>>>>>>>>> outbound (0.12,0.06,0.06) msg/sec
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> SMSC connections:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *fake*[fake]    FAKE:10000 (online 109s, rcvd 0, *dlr 14*, sent 7,
>>>>>>>>> failed 0, queued 0 msgs)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.blogalex.com/archives/222
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> yep, I'm in... +0 from my side.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stipe
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> Kölner 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
>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Alejandro Guerrieri-2]

Yes you're right, now that we have MO and MT dlr info, it makes more  
sense to have that on the "dlr" section instead of having it along the  
SMS data.

Also on the smsc's, having the <received> and <sent> nodes is more  
clear.

I'm +1 on this new format.

Do you want me to commit it myself or will you do it?

Regards,
--
Alejandro Guerrieri
aguerrieri@...

On 11/11/2009, at 16:46, Alexander Malysh wrote:

> Hi Alex,
>
> I changed your patch a bit. I hope that it would me more clear for  
> users what the all counters means.
>
> New patch attached...
> Please let me know what you think?
>
> <dlr_status.diff>
>
> Here examples:
>
> TXT:
> Status: running, uptime 0d 0h 0m 9s
>
> WDP: received 0 (0 queued), sent 0 (0 queued)
>
> SMS: received 0 (0 queued), sent 0 (0 queued), store size -1
> SMS: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, outbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/
> sec
>
> DLR: received 0, sent 0
> DLR: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, outbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/
> sec
> DLR: 0 queued, using internal storage
>
> No boxes connected
>
> SMSC connections:
>    FAKE[FAKE]    FAKE:20000 (connecting, rcvd: sms 0 / dlr 0, sent:  
> sms 0 / dlr 0, failed 0, queued 0 msgs)
>
> XML:
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <gateway>
> <status>running, uptime 0d 0h 0m 35s</status>
> <wdp>
> <received><total>0</total><queued>0</queued></received>
> <sent><total>0</total><queued>0</queued></sent>
> </wdp>
> <sms>
> <received><total>0</total><queued>0</queued></received>
> <sent><total>0</total><queued>0</queued></sent>
> <storesize>-1</storesize>
> <inbound>0.00,0.00,0.00</inbound>
> <outbound>0.00,0.00,0.00</outbound>
> </sms>
> <dlr>
> <received><total>0</total></received>
> <sent><total>0</total></sent>
> <inbound>0.00,0.00,0.00</inbound>
> <outbound>0.00,0.00,0.00</outbound>
> <queued>0</queued>
> <storage>internal</storage>
> </dlr>
> <boxes>
> </boxes>
> <smscs><count>1</count>
> <smsc>
> <name>FAKE:20000</name>
> <admin-id>FAKE</admin-id>
> <id>FAKE</id>
> <status>connecting</status>
> <received><sms>0</sms><dlr>0</dlr></received>
> <sent><sms>0</sms><dlr>0</dlr></sent>
> <failed>0</failed>
> <queued>0</queued>
> </smsc>
> </smscs>
> </gateway>
>
>
> Am 11.11.2009 um 14:27 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>
>> Please see attached. I'm adding the patch for the kannel-monitor  
>> later.
>>
>> Regards,
>> --
>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>> aguerrieri@...
>>
>>
>> <kannel-dlr-status-v2.diff.zip>
>>
>> On 11/11/2009, at 12:33, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Am 11.11.2009 um 12:09 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>>>
>>>> Ok, so you'd like the patch to transparently handle the concept  
>>>> of "outgoing" dlrs?
>>>
>>> yes that would be great... This is 5 minutes patch :)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It would be useless on many drivers where Kannel's acting as a  
>>>> "client" only (SMPP for instance) but yes, on HTTP and  
>>>> derivatives would make sense.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> --
>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>>>> aguerrieri@...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/11/2009, at 11:42, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 11.11.2009 um 11:38 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Alex,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Outgoing DLR's? At least on SMPP, there's not such a thing:  
>>>>>> when you submit an MT with dlr-mask/dlr-url set, the submit_sm  
>>>>>> PDU has the delivery receipt flag set. When the message is  
>>>>>> accepted (the SMSC sends a submit_sm_resp), kannel creates a  
>>>>>> first incoming DLR and later on the SMSC sends one incoming  
>>>>>> (deliver_sm) DLR (or more, if intermediate DLR's are enabled)  
>>>>>> with the message status(es).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you mean with "outgoing DLR's" ?
>>>>>
>>>>> at least for HTTP smsc we can implement DLR forwarding...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>>>>>> aguerrieri@...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/11/2009, at 9:36, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we have to expand this patch to handle incoming and  
>>>>>>> outgoing DLRs.
>>>>>>> Now we don't differentiate DLRs from SMS traffic and therefore  
>>>>>>> this is not a issue.
>>>>>>> But if we start to differentiate DLRs from SMS we need to  
>>>>>>> split it to incoming/outgoing
>>>>>>> the same as for SMS traffic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Alexander Malysh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 11.11.2009 um 08:13 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any objections? Can I commit?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>>>>>>>> aguerrieri@...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2009, at 15:46, Stipe Tolj wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri schrieb:
>>>>>>>>>> This patch adds separate dlr counters on the status page.  
>>>>>>>>>> This is much
>>>>>>>>>> clearer than now imho, where we have dlr's and mo's mixed  
>>>>>>>>>> on the same
>>>>>>>>>> counter.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For example:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> SMS: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, *dlr  
>>>>>>>>>> (0.23,0.12,0.12) msg/sec*,
>>>>>>>>>> outbound (0.12,0.06,0.06) msg/sec
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> SMSC connections:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *fake*[fake]    FAKE:10000 (online 109s, rcvd 0, *dlr 14*,  
>>>>>>>>>> sent 7,
>>>>>>>>>> failed 0, queued 0 msgs)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.blogalex.com/archives/222
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> yep, I'm in... +0 from my side.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Stipe
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> Kölner 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
>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Alexander Malysh]

I will commit it shortly...

Am 11.11.2009 um 16:54 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:

> Yes you're right, now that we have MO and MT dlr info, it makes more sense to have that on the "dlr" section instead of having it along the SMS data.
>
> Also on the smsc's, having the <received> and <sent> nodes is more clear.
>
> I'm +1 on this new format.
>
> Do you want me to commit it myself or will you do it?
>
> Regards,
> --
> Alejandro Guerrieri
> aguerrieri@...
>
> On 11/11/2009, at 16:46, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> I changed your patch a bit. I hope that it would me more clear for users what the all counters means.
>>
>> New patch attached...
>> Please let me know what you think?
>>
>> <dlr_status.diff>
>>
>> Here examples:
>>
>> TXT:
>> Status: running, uptime 0d 0h 0m 9s
>>
>> WDP: received 0 (0 queued), sent 0 (0 queued)
>>
>> SMS: received 0 (0 queued), sent 0 (0 queued), store size -1
>> SMS: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, outbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec
>>
>> DLR: received 0, sent 0
>> DLR: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, outbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec
>> DLR: 0 queued, using internal storage
>>
>> No boxes connected
>>
>> SMSC connections:
>>   FAKE[FAKE]    FAKE:20000 (connecting, rcvd: sms 0 / dlr 0, sent: sms 0 / dlr 0, failed 0, queued 0 msgs)
>>
>> XML:
>> <?xml version="1.0"?>
>> <gateway>
>> <status>running, uptime 0d 0h 0m 35s</status>
>> <wdp>
>> <received><total>0</total><queued>0</queued></received>
>> <sent><total>0</total><queued>0</queued></sent>
>> </wdp>
>> <sms>
>> <received><total>0</total><queued>0</queued></received>
>> <sent><total>0</total><queued>0</queued></sent>
>> <storesize>-1</storesize>
>> <inbound>0.00,0.00,0.00</inbound>
>> <outbound>0.00,0.00,0.00</outbound>
>> </sms>
>> <dlr>
>> <received><total>0</total></received>
>> <sent><total>0</total></sent>
>> <inbound>0.00,0.00,0.00</inbound>
>> <outbound>0.00,0.00,0.00</outbound>
>> <queued>0</queued>
>> <storage>internal</storage>
>> </dlr>
>> <boxes>
>> </boxes>
>> <smscs><count>1</count>
>> <smsc>
>> <name>FAKE:20000</name>
>> <admin-id>FAKE</admin-id>
>> <id>FAKE</id>
>> <status>connecting</status>
>> <received><sms>0</sms><dlr>0</dlr></received>
>> <sent><sms>0</sms><dlr>0</dlr></sent>
>> <failed>0</failed>
>> <queued>0</queued>
>> </smsc>
>> </smscs>
>> </gateway>
>>
>>
>> Am 11.11.2009 um 14:27 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>>
>>> Please see attached. I'm adding the patch for the kannel-monitor later.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> --
>>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>>> aguerrieri@...
>>>
>>>
>>> <kannel-dlr-status-v2.diff.zip>
>>>
>>> On 11/11/2009, at 12:33, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 11.11.2009 um 12:09 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>>>>
>>>>> Ok, so you'd like the patch to transparently handle the concept of "outgoing" dlrs?
>>>>
>>>> yes that would be great... This is 5 minutes patch :)
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be useless on many drivers where Kannel's acting as a "client" only (SMPP for instance) but yes, on HTTP and derivatives would make sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> --
>>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>>>>> aguerrieri@...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/11/2009, at 11:42, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 11.11.2009 um 11:38 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alex,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Outgoing DLR's? At least on SMPP, there's not such a thing: when you submit an MT with dlr-mask/dlr-url set, the submit_sm PDU has the delivery receipt flag set. When the message is accepted (the SMSC sends a submit_sm_resp), kannel creates a first incoming DLR and later on the SMSC sends one incoming (deliver_sm) DLR (or more, if intermediate DLR's are enabled) with the message status(es).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you mean with "outgoing DLR's" ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> at least for HTTP smsc we can implement DLR forwarding...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>>>>>>> aguerrieri@...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/11/2009, at 9:36, Alexander Malysh wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Alex,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think we have to expand this patch to handle incoming and outgoing DLRs.
>>>>>>>> Now we don't differentiate DLRs from SMS traffic and therefore this is not a issue.
>>>>>>>> But if we start to differentiate DLRs from SMS we need to split it to incoming/outgoing
>>>>>>>> the same as for SMS traffic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Alexander Malysh
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 11.11.2009 um 08:13 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any objections? Can I commit?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri
>>>>>>>>> aguerrieri@...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/11/2009, at 15:46, Stipe Tolj wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Alejandro Guerrieri schrieb:
>>>>>>>>>>> This patch adds separate dlr counters on the status page. This is much
>>>>>>>>>>> clearer than now imho, where we have dlr's and mo's mixed on the same
>>>>>>>>>>> counter.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For example:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> SMS: inbound (0.00,0.00,0.00) msg/sec, *dlr (0.23,0.12,0.12) msg/sec*,
>>>>>>>>>>> outbound (0.12,0.06,0.06) msg/sec
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> SMSC connections:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *fake*[fake]    FAKE:10000 (online 109s, rcvd 0, *dlr 14*, sent 7,
>>>>>>>>>>> failed 0, queued 0 msgs)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.blogalex.com/archives/222
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> yep, I'm in... +0 from my side.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Stipe
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> Kölner 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
>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>