+1 from me too, although I'd probably not replace all the occurrences of smsc_id with dlr_group_id, but my code would be a bit longer.
Thanks a lot Ben. On 2/22/07, Alexander Malysh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Ben, patch looks ok. I'm +1 on this one. Any other votes? Ben Suffolk wrote: > Guys, > > I have been using this for nearly a month now in production without > any problems. > > Is there any reason why it should not be committed to CVS? > > Regards > > Ben > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Ben Suffolk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: 29 January 2007 13:26:30 GMT >> To: Ben Suffolk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Cc: Kannel Development list <devel@kannel.org> >> Subject: [PATCH] dlr-group-id : Multiple SMSCs and a DLR group >> >>> I think a simple fix would be to have another field say dlr-id, >>> which if not set would default to the smsc-id. This field would >>> then be used for the smsc name in the dlr tables. This way you can >>> group multiple smscs into a logical dlr group, but still have >>> individual control over them. >>> >>> Any thoughts on this before I have a go at implementing it? >> >> Well I got no responses in the negative to this idea, so I have >> implemented it. >> >> This patch allows you to add a config option to the smsc group >> called dlr-group-id, this lets you have several SMSCs with >> different id's grouped together so that they can share DLR data. >> i.e. in the situation that you send a message via one SMSC and get >> the DLR back via the other but you want to allow all the SMSCs to >> have different id's for control / logging purposes. >> >> If you do not specify dlr-group-id in the config is uses smsc-id as >> before. >> >> > ? >> Regards >> >> Ben -- Thanks, Alex
-- Enver
