> Hi Alan,
>
>
> Patch looks good. userguide needs some changes:
>
>
> 1) Capitalize after periods (For example, For default mode)
> 2) In configuration the value should be integer, not hex (3 not 03).
> cfg_get_integer doesn't understand hex (0xA5).
>
>
> +1
>
>
>
> Nikos
>
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 4:02 AM, Alan McNatty <
alan@...>
> wrote:
> patch attached.
>
> Votes / comments, etc?
>
> On Wed, 2011-08-03 at 09:39 +1200, Alan McNatty wrote:
> > 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" <
amalysh@...>
> > > To: "Alan McNatty" <
alan@...>
> > > Cc: "Nikos Balkanas" <
nbalkanas@...>;
> <
devel@...>
> > > 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" <
alan@...>
> > > >>> To: <
devel@...>
> > > >>> 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
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>