Re: [PEPr] Comment on Networking::Net_SMPP

Bonjour Ian,

Could you present your Net_SMS implementation, as maintainer of it I did not get a copy and anyway a practical example of Net_SMPP's (and client) use would be meaningfull.

Attached. It would be more value to link it as an example for the client proposal

I mailed this to the Net_SMS leads. They weren't too happy that my code needed a patch to work; I explained why, and never got anything back. Your code does not need that !

You can perfectly handle your extra parameters in your own class. I would also oppose myself to such a change,.

So, Net_SMS devs, what do I need to change for you to accept this? Yes, Net_SMS colleagues , could you review Ian's proposal ?

Net_SMS could become the first "user" of Net_SMPP, bulk sending is a good prospect, I think

The factories should do: $obj =& new $class(...); return $obj; instead of: return new $class(...);

Is there a reason for this? Does 'return new...' copy instead of return a reference? My point is

either returning a reference but then without an intermediate copy or returning a copy without reference No half way.

I tested out _unpack() on PHP4.2.2 , seems ok. Generally, I still not understand this over complicated structure, or if it's due, I would say it is quite difficult to check :), could you produce some schema/explanations ?

The structure of _unpack(), or of the package(s) as a whole? whole,

this _unpack is no mistery for me :) , I got it in nose long time ago :) I mean, it would save us some time to analyze the strucure if we had a litle explanation of it and why it is so. That could help people to review your proposal.

How is the vendor set in Client ?

$smsc =& new Net_SMPP_Client('smsc.provider.com', 3204); $smsc->vendor = 'myVendor'; $smsc->connect(); funny, no setter here ?

Bon courage ! à+ -- bertrand Gugger http://toggg.com/