Rene,
Looks good. +1
Though i dont like the "for (;;) {" approach in catenate_msg very much... it
looks stressing before going through the code in detail ;)
I'd rather have a do { .. } while(++max > total) -> and then instead of
unreachable return do a failure code...
But then again it seems like a common practice in gwlib and throughout
kannel code so it shouldnt be an issue
$ grep -rn 'for[ ]*(;;)' gw*
gw/urltrans.c:346: for (;;) {
gw/smsc/smsc.c:361: for (;;) {
gw/smsc/smsc_cimd.c:125: for (;;) {
gw/smsc/smsc_cimd.c:297: for (;;) {
gw/smsc/smsc_cimd.c:580: for (;;) {
gw/smsc/smsc_cimd.c:597: for (;;) {
gw/smsc/smsc_cimd.c:688: for (;;) {
gw/smsc/smsc_oisd.c:1248: for (;;) {
gw/smsc/smsc_cimd2.c:2053: for (;;) {
gw/smsc/smsc_emi.c:1289: for (;;) {
gw/smsc/smsc_smasi.c:945: for (;;) {
gw/smsc/smsc_sema.c:724: for (;;) {
gw/smsbox.c:1121: for (;;) {
gw/smsbox.c:3179: for (;;) {
gwlib/http.c:138: for (;;) {
gwlib/http.c:2126: for (;;) {
gwlib/mime.c:138: for (;;) {
gwlib/fdset.c:328: for (;;) {
gwlib/utils.c:244: for (;;) {
gwlib/utils.c:403: for (;;) {
Regards,
Konstantin
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Rene Kluwen <rene.klu...@chimit.nl> wrote:
> Okay, to comply with Kannel's common practices, hereby I send in a patch
> for
> open smppbox that allows for all parts of multipart messages to be sent via
> the same smsc (letting bearerbox split the message up).
>
> The patch applies to current svn trunk of smppbox.
>
> Known issue: This patch submits a deliver_sm message for all parts of the
> original message. Kannel complains about it, because it can only find the
> first part in the dlr table.
> Since this seems to be a Kannel issue and not smppbox, I am letting it this
> way. This doesn't affect any practical, operational issues.
>
> Special thanks to Tomasz Konopka for letting me test in his production
> environment.
>
> Can I have any votes on this?
>
> == Rene
>
>
