From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6554369575255232338==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Jukka Saunamaki Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] Dummy example GPRS context provisioning driver Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 15:58:50 +0200 Message-ID: <1295013530.2109.10.camel@jsaunama-desktop> In-Reply-To: <1295012686.3873.141.camel@aeonflux> List-Id: To: ofono@ofono.org --===============6554369575255232338== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi On Fri, 2011-01-14 at 14:44 +0100, ext Marcel Holtmann wrote: > Hi Jukka, > = > > > > I was not sure if all MVNOs have their own MNC, but in any case some > > > > operators use different trade names. Off the top of my hat I know o= ur > > > > local Finnish operators Elisa and Sonera use trade names like Kolum= bus > > > > and TeleFinland, and their name shown in UI needs to be correct. > > > = > > > what does the name showing in the UI has to do with the provision data > > > for the GPRS contexts? I am missing your point here. > > = > > Isn't the 'name' property of a context shown in some UI (when user > > selects connection to open)? > = > so you wanna use the SPN to set the nice friendly name of the Context. > So far we just defaulted to "Internet" and "MMS" and did not bother any > further. Yes, that is how our previous UIs have done it, and I guess our UX designers like it in the future too. > For example ConnMan actually takes that information from the network > registration and not from the context. > > > And there might be cases where other context settings like APN is > > different with different trade names. > = > Is that really the case? Can this be used reliably? Quick look at our operator database does indeed confirm that, there are cases where different SPN maps to different APN. --Jukka --===============6554369575255232338==--