This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.
A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/OpenBSC@lists.osmocom.org/.
Harald Welte laforge at gnumonks.orgOn Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 12:24:17PM +0200, ☎ wrote: > Having readily available protocol implementation as part of some > library would make it a lot easier to implement. It'll also make > protocol version tracking much simpler. from my point of view there is nothing as a plain 'protocol implementation', but you would basically have to invent portable/stable data structures, associated APIs, etc. Given that MNCC is not complex but rather simply a way of encoding primitives that get shoved left and right, I'm not sure what such 'yet another representation for the MNCC primitives' would bring, except more code that needs to be written, and that needs to be traversed. >From my point of view, the header file is probably everything that you would need to share. From the very dispatch of the received primitives, everything will be very much dependent on the actual MNCC handler (lcr, freeswitch, etc.) who all have their own architecture, data structures, etc. The issue gets even more simplified by the fact that MNCC doesn't even have a real/portable wire encoding (think of TLVs, ...) that's independent of the 'structs' that we pass around over the socket. Feel free to convince me otherwise, but at least so far I do not see how that shared/common code would look like :) Regards, Harald -- - Harald Welte <laforge at gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/ ============================================================================ "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)