On Friday, 18 בNovember 2005 12:47, Andreas Fink wrote:
> trying to play with the priority is NOT the solution.
Never said it was.
> Kannel's priority are for defining priorities of message paths, not
> priority of individual message parts.
> So changing priorities could have a total other effect than what you
> expect.
Yes - but I'm not suggesting to set different priorities on different
parts of the same message, I'm just saying that the current
implementation of the priority queues re-orders messages of the same
priority (and time) arbitrarily, for no good reason, and thus may break
things which previously worked - again for no good reason. It almost
seems like Kannel developers are sating to themselves - "lets try to be
as incompatible as possible to current deployed products while still
maintaining spec compliancy). I think its important - when adding
features - to try to maintain all other behavioral characteristics.
IMO, the features required from a priority queue (in order of
importance) are:
1. correctly order items based on criteria properties (priority and
time).
3. maintain items of equal criteria properties, in the order in which
they were introduced into the queue.
2. be fast
The current implementation offers only features 1 and 3, and as such -
incomplete.
--
Oded Arbel
m-Wise mobile solutions
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+972-9-9611212 (204)
+972-54-7340014
::..
'I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank
what?"'
-- from "Real Genius"
