I'm developing a sms application using a Portech MT-350 GSM gateway.
This box automatically sends to client a report when a call is incoming.
Something like:
+CLIP "0123456789"....,2
I could remove the CLIP informations with AT+CLIP=0 command but it still send a single status digit:
2 for ring
3 for call closed.
I need to disable all this codes, I don't want any unsollicited message by the box because it dirties the TE-TA comunication during sms sending.
I tried also the AT+CNMI=0,0,0,0,0 command without success.
Can you suggest something to try? I can not understand if this is a standard behaviour of a GSM TE or if it is particular of this box.
As I remember, AT+GSMBUSY=1 rejects all incoming calls. Not a perfect decision, but maybe it helps.
Related
I have an embedded device running BT5 with GATT server setup. On the server I have setup a service with various characteristics to allow a client (PC or Mobile Device) to adjust various parameters of the device by writing to the characteristics.
I would like, for the device to send a response back from the application level for each write. It's not clear to me what the recommended way would be.
I thought about having the client read or subscribe to a general status characteristic, but I want to make sure I am not missing an easier way to do this. I looked at the BT write with response command, but it seems the acknowledgement for that may happen lower than the application.
You should be able to use the Write Response as "application level response". I have not seen any Bluetooth stack where this response is sent at a lower level before the application has processed the request. The reason is probably because the application can even send an Application Error code instead of a Write Response, so it would be stupid to move the Write Response handling to a lower level. Even in Android (if you set up a GATT server) you send the Write Response from the application.
The situation is different with Indications, though, where the Bluetooth stack sometimes sends the Confirmation at a lower level than the application, before it even informs the application that an Indication has arrived, which I find a bit strange and makes Indications kind of pointless compared to Notifications.
I solved this using a Notification characteristic. The client first subscribes to notification events on that CCD, and then every command sent to the host/device is acknowledged by the host firing the notification. To better synchronize command-and-response, you could add an incremental command-id with every command, and have the command-id be part of the notification data that is sent back to the client.
However I implemented this because I needed a response after the device has processed the command, with the results sent back to the client. If all you want to know is whether or not the host has received the command, a Write-With-Response CCD is the way to go.
I looked at the BT write with response command, but it seems the acknowledgement for that may happen lower than the application.
Indeed, the Write-With-Response-Handler is almost always implemented on the BLE stack, not on application level. However I don't see why this would be a problem; you should get error reports by your BLE stack in some form when a Write-with-Response fails. If it's a blocking call it might even return a success-value.
I'm using asterisk with webrtc in chrome (SIPml5 client) and also using their webrtc2sip gateway.
My problem is that I can't send the hook-flash/flash signal to asterisk for some reason.
Is there a possibility to trigger hook flash by sending DTMF signals ? (which apparently work for me )
Example: I want to trigger the standard hold functionality by sending the following DTMF sequence: #123.
On the other hand as a workaround, could I hold a channel using AMI or AGI ?
Basically I want the other party to hear OnHoldMusic while the channels/call remain active. On the local side I can just mute the audio tag which is fine.
Thanks.
Yes, you can do hold using ami command hold or AGI exec command musiconhold
That info is availible in AMI/AGI documentation
You can handle dtmf by using features.conf
I'm working on the firmware of a device that is going to be connected to PCs using Bluetooth in serial port emulation mode.
During testing, I found out that modem-manager on Linux "helpfully" tries to detect it as a modem, sending the AT+GCAP command; to this, currently my device replies with something like INVALIDCMD AT+GCAP. That is the correct response for my protocol, but obviously isn't an AT reply, so modem-manager isn't satisfied and tries again with AT+GCAP and other modem-related stuff.
Now, I found some workarounds for modem-manager (see here and thus here, in particular the udev rule method), but:
they are not extremely robust (I have to make a custom udev rule that may break if we change the Bluetooth module);
I fear that not only modem-manager, but similar software/OS features (e.g. on Windows or OS X) may give me similar annoyances.
Also, having full control over the firmware, I can add a special case for AT+GCAP and similar stuff; so, coming to my question:
Is there a standard/safe reply to AT+GCAP and other similar modem-probing queries to tell "I'm not a modem, go away and leave me alone?"
(making an answer out of the comments)
In order to indicate I do not understand any AT commands at all (aka I am not a modem) the correct response to any received AT commands should be silence.
In order to indicate I do not understand this particular AT command the correct response should be ERROR.
Anything between will trigger implementation defined behaviour of the entity sending AT commands. Some will possibly give up right away while modem-manager apparently is set on retrying sending the command until it gets a "proper" response.
I would want to send a message from the server actively, such as using UDP/TCPIP to a client using an arduino. It is known that this is possible if the user has port forward the specific port to the device on local network. However I wouldn't want to have the user to port forward manually, perhaps using another protocol, will this be possible?
1 Arduino Side
I think the closest you can get to this is opening a connection to the server from the arduino, then use available to wait for the server to stream some data to the arduino. Your code will be polling the open connection, but you are avoiding all the back and forth communications to open and close the connection, passing headers back and forth etc.
2 Server Side
This means the bulk of the work will be on the server side, where you will need to manage open connections so you can instantly write to them when a user triggers some event which requires a message to be pushed to the arduino. How to do this varies a bit depending on what type of server application you are running.
2.1 Node.js "walk-through" of main issues
In Node.js for example, you can res.write() on a connection, without closing it - this should give a similar effect as having an open serial connection to the arduino. That leaves you with the issue of managing the connection - should the server periodically check a database for messages for the arduino? That simply removes one link from the arduino -> server -> database polling link, so we should be able to do better.
We can attach a function triggered by the event of a message being added to the database. Node-orm2 is a database Object Relational Model driver for node.js, and it offers hooks such as afterSave and afterCreate which you can utilize for this type of thing. Depending on your application, you may be better off not using a database at all and simply using javascript objects.
The only remaining issue then, is: once the hook is activated, how do we get the correct connection into scope so we can write to it? Well you can save all the relevant data you have on the request to some global data structure, maybe a dictionary with an arduino ID as index, and in the triggered function you fetch all the data, i.e. the request context and you write to it!
See this blog post for a great example, including node.js code which manages open connections, closing them properly and clearing from memory on timeout etc.
3 Conclusion
I haven't tested this myself - but I plan to since I already have an existing application using arduino and node.js which is currently implemented using normal polling. Hopefully I will get around to it soon and return here with results.
Typically in long-polling (from what I've read) the connection is closed once data is sent back to the client (arduino), although I don't see why this would be necessary. I plan to try keeping the same connection open for multiple messages, only closing after a fixed time interval to re-establish the connection - and I hope to set this interval fairly high, 5-15 minutes maybe.
We use Pubnub to send notifications to a client web browser so a user can know immediately when they have received a "message" and stuff like that. It works great.
This seems to have the same constraints that you are looking at: No static IP, no port forwarding. User can theoretically just plug the thing in...
It looks like Pubnub has an Arduino library:
https://github.com/pubnub/arduino
Hallo, developing a bb app I need to make http connections to get files, images etc.
In simulator all works, but not in device.
I bought a BlackBerry but I want to test my app without a sim then without a bes.
How do I need to set my device? and how do I have to compose my url?
I just have a bb device with wifi available
Thanks all :)
Sergio
As answered for this duplicate question...
This was a tough one for me!
As Mark said you have to put some parameters in the url to make it work on the device. You shouldn't do it by hand but use the ConnectionFactory instead.
As you may thing this would just make it work but it doesn't!
The real problem is that not the url has been altered because it has ;interface=wifi;deviceside=true in it (in my case). Depending on the webserver accepting your request this could broke the code.
A solution I tried and that works is try to happend a fake parameter like
&foo=true -> &foo=true;deviceside=true
This will result as a standard parameter for the webserver but your device would use it to driver your connection.
On the simulator this work without this extra code because behind it there is a BIS server for you. On the device (as in my case) there isn't because I'm using a development device unregistered and without SIM (just wifi).
Another point is that the HttpConnection class doesn't handle HTTP 302 Redirect and if you get one you have to handle it manually.
Try appending ";interface=wifi" onto the URL when using a device (instead of ";deviceside=true"). This will force a Wi-Fi connection (assuming the device has Wi-Fi).