[PATCH] smsutil: do not hardcode TP-ValidityPeriod

[PATCH] smsutil: do not hardcode TP-ValidityPeriod

[Pekka.Pessi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1501 bytes --]

From: Pekka Pessi <Pekka.Pessi@nokia.com>

---
 src/smsutil.c |    6 ++----
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/src/smsutil.c b/src/smsutil.c
index f4eee24..59faaf7 100644
--- a/src/smsutil.c
+++ b/src/smsutil.c
@@ -3162,11 +3162,10 @@ GSList *sms_datagram_prepare(const char *to,
 	memset(&template, 0, sizeof(struct sms));
 	template.type = SMS_TYPE_SUBMIT;
 	template.submit.rd = FALSE;
-	template.submit.vpf = SMS_VALIDITY_PERIOD_FORMAT_RELATIVE;
+	template.submit.vpf = SMS_VALIDITY_PERIOD_FORMAT_ABSENT;
 	template.submit.rp = FALSE;
 	template.submit.srr = use_delivery_reports;
 	template.submit.mr = 0;
-	template.submit.vp.relative = 0xA7; /* 24 Hours */
 	template.submit.dcs = 0x04; /* Class Unspecified, 8 Bit */
 	template.submit.udhi = TRUE;
 	sms_address_from_string(&template.submit.daddr, to);
@@ -3288,11 +3287,10 @@ GSList *sms_text_prepare(const char *to, const char *utf8, guint16 ref,
 	memset(&template, 0, sizeof(struct sms));
 	template.type = SMS_TYPE_SUBMIT;
 	template.submit.rd = FALSE;
-	template.submit.vpf = SMS_VALIDITY_PERIOD_FORMAT_RELATIVE;
+	template.submit.vpf = SMS_VALIDITY_PERIOD_FORMAT_ABSENT;
 	template.submit.rp = FALSE;
 	template.submit.srr = use_delivery_reports;
 	template.submit.mr = 0;
-	template.submit.vp.relative = 0xA7; /* 24 Hours */
 	sms_address_from_string(&template.submit.daddr, to);
 
 	/* UDHI, UDL, UD and DCS actually depend on what we have in the text */
-- 
1.7.1

Re: [PATCH] smsutil: do not hardcode TP-ValidityPeriod

[Denis Kenzior]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 810 bytes --]

Hi Pekka,

On 12/08/2010 03:57 PM, Pekka.Pessi(a)nokia.com wrote:
> From: Pekka Pessi <Pekka.Pessi@nokia.com>
> 
> ---
>  src/smsutil.c |    6 ++----
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/src/smsutil.c b/src/smsutil.c
> index f4eee24..59faaf7 100644
> --- a/src/smsutil.c
> +++ b/src/smsutil.c
> @@ -3162,11 +3162,10 @@ GSList *sms_datagram_prepare(const char *to,
>  	memset(&template, 0, sizeof(struct sms));
>  	template.type = SMS_TYPE_SUBMIT;
>  	template.submit.rd = FALSE;
> -	template.submit.vpf = SMS_VALIDITY_PERIOD_FORMAT_RELATIVE;
> +	template.submit.vpf = SMS_VALIDITY_PERIOD_FORMAT_ABSENT;

Can I get a bit more of an explanation from you as to why the 'absent'
validity period is better than hardcoding this to 24 hours?

Regards,
-Denis

Re: [PATCH] smsutil: do not hardcode TP-ValidityPeriod

[Pekka Pessi]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 392 bytes --]

Hi Denis,

2010/12/17 Denis Kenzior <denkenz@gmail.com>:
> Can I get a bit more of an explanation from you as to why the 'absent'
> validity period is better than hardcoding this to 24 hours?

If there is an explicit validity period, it overrides the default
validity period set by operator. I'd rather let operator-set default
validity period.

-- 
Pekka.Pessi mail at nokia.com

Re: [PATCH] smsutil: do not hardcode TP-ValidityPeriod

[Denis Kenzior]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 534 bytes --]

Hi Pekka,

On 12/17/2010 07:29 AM, Pekka Pessi wrote:
> Hi Denis,
> 
> 2010/12/17 Denis Kenzior <denkenz@gmail.com>:
>> Can I get a bit more of an explanation from you as to why the 'absent'
>> validity period is better than hardcoding this to 24 hours?
> 
> If there is an explicit validity period, it overrides the default
> validity period set by operator. I'd rather let operator-set default
> validity period.
> 

Sounds good.  Can you resend this patch with the description stating the
above?

Thanks,
-Denis