Hi,
I actually didn't realise that bb_smsccon_sent is a callback, and kept
mixing it up with smscconn_sent. Plus you state that each SMSc connection
has its own thread, and Donald agrees. That's much better. You shouldn't
have to explain it, I should have known better.
I am a wap person and haven't been involved with SMS that much. I would need
to study the architecture better at this point, before sticking my foot in
my mouth again.
BR,
Nikos
----- Original Message -----
From: "Damian Viano" <damian.vi...@buongiorno.com>
To: "Nikos Balkanas" <nbalka...@gmail.com>
Cc: "Donald Jackson" <donaldjs...@gmail.com>; <devel@kannel.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Guaranteed throughput smsc-independent
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:20:11AM +0300, Nikos Balkanas wrote:
Actually, I don't think that even this patch can guarantee solid
throughput.
All I/O (including SMSc) is handled by a polling thread. AFAIK
bb_smscconn_sent just puts the sms in the connection queue, where the
What? No. bb_smscconn_sent just account for a sent sms and generate the
corresponding DLR, AND is an MUST callback for the smsc after a successful
send
of a message which is the reason that motivated me to assume that the smsc
sender thread will call this function (confirmed by the fakesmsc).
connection layer takes over and sends it. If there is a queue for that
SMSc,
the connection layer will still try to empty it as fast as it can.
IMHO, any robust throughput should be implemented in the connection
layer.
The idea behind this patch is to avoid implementing it for every
connection,
without loosing the fact that the affected layer is the connection layer.
That's exactly the reason I choose this callback to do the sleeping and no
other part.
BR,
Nikos
I hope I clarified your doubts about my patch, and I welcome any further
input.
Thanks for your point of view, I think I failed to inform better why this
is
supposed to work and your mail make me write it a lot clearer (I hope!).
Damiαn Viano(Des).