> > I see the dilema and was just thinking of how to solve this with a > > kludge in the unified-prefix itself, but I can't see one :(( > > > > You may be right here, so that a smsc specific unified-prefix would > > fix this problems. > > any comments on producing a patch for this from the other?! > > Can someone fix Jakob's dilemma with the set of directives we > currently have? > > Jakob, can you provide a patch for this to be smsc-id specific? > > Stipe
The problem is that unified=prefix is handled at the bearerbox box connection module level and not the SMSC protocol level so it would either need to be moved up to smsc code level (not an attractive choice) or have SMSC specific conditional statements in the bb_smscconn.c Probably the best way to go is to have the ability for a global prefix at core group level and then smsc group definitions as well which can be checked in bb_smscconn Anyone else agree? Alex -- Alex Judd http://www.enpocket.com/
