And I cannot agree more, actually. But auditing takes time. Until it is done, --disable-panics will be of some use.
Aarno
On 16.3.2005, at 18:09, Pommnitz, Jörg wrote:
But this just confirms what I wrote: such a panic is obviously inappropriate and should be replaced by a warning. So, I stand by what I wrote earlier: just audit the panics and make sure Kannel panics in only *REALLY* hopeless situations. This would IMHO be the Right Thing (TM) to do.
Regards Joerg
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Jonathan Houser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. März 2005 17:52 An: Aarno Syvänen Cc: Kannel list Betreff: Re: [RFC] --disable-panics configuration option
Aarno,
There actually seems to two kinds of panic:
a) Configuration errors. In this case, continuation really is impossible.
b) Libs has some sanity checks that cause panic. If we just have a broken
message, we must just ignore message, not panic.
I would like it if a panic just wrote the appropriate lines to the
log (for debugging) and kept on running. The panic's I've seen were for
things that pertained to a WDP message from some phone on the WAP
gateway. If that one phone doesn't get his fetch handled, oh well, we
should log that we had a problem and keep on running. So I like the
idea you've proposed. It'd allow everyone to work through issues
without having a wrapper script work overtime.
Jon
