No subject

> 
> regards
Thanx for your help...

> 
> Hugh
> 
> 
> At 15:22 -0300 01/7/27, Mariano Absatz wrote:
> >El 27 Jul 2001, a las 9:17, Hugh Irvine escribió:
> >
> >>
> >>  Hello Mariano -
> >>
> >>  Yes you can certainly have any number of AcctSQLStatement's without an
> >>  AccountingTable and AcctColumnDef's.
> >>
> >>  You might want to think about using Handlers to process your requests.
> >>
> >>  Something like this:
> >>
> >>  # define Handler to process accounting stops
> >>
> >>  <Handler Acct-Status-Type = Stop>
> >>   .....
> >>  </Handler>
> >>
> >>  # define Handler to process other accounting requests
> >>
> >>  <Handler Request-Type = Accounting-Request>
> >>   .....
> >>  </Handler>
> >Yes...
> >but nonetheless, I want to apply all of the processing of <Handler Request-
> >Type = Accounting-Request> to the same packets that also match <Handler Acct-
> >Status-Type = Stop> and it is "cleaner" (at least for my eye) if I have one
> ><AuthBy OnlyDoThisWithStops> and one <AuthBy DoThisWithEveryAcctPack> and use
> >both in the <Handler Request-Type = Accounting-Request>.
> >
> >>
> >>  # define Handlers for everything else
> >>
> >>  <Handler .....>
> >>   .....
> >>  </Handler>
> >>
> >>  <Handler>
> >>   .....
> >>  </Handler>
> >>
> >>  hth
> >>
> >>  Hugh
> >>
> >>
> >>  On Friday 27 July 2001 03:20, Mariano Absatz wrote:
> >>  > Hi,
> >>  >
> >>  > is it possible to have an <AuthBy SQL> that doesn't even have
> >>  > AccountingTable and AcctColumnDef, but only AcctSQLStatement? The manual
> >>  > seems to say "no".
> >>  >
> >>  > Here's what I want to do:
> >>  >
> >>  > I already have my "main" accounting only <AuthBy SQL> that processes
> >>  > Start's Stop's and, if they are there, Alive's.
> >>  >
> >>  > Now I want to do a couple of AcctSQLStatement's but I want them only to
> >>  > be executed when I get a Stop packet (to do time-block and also
> >>  > "byte"-block)
> >>  >
> >>  > I want to use AccountingStopsOnly in my new <AuthBy SQL> especially
> >>  > trying to avoid Alive packets that would make accumulative substract
> >>  > time when I shouldn't.
> >>  >
> >>  > I don't want to ignore altogether alive packets because billing will use
> >>  > them if the Stop packet gets lost...
> >>  >
> >>  > Any ideas?
> >>  >

--
Mariano Absatz
El Baby
----------------------------------------------------------
Not the brightest crayon in the box now, are we?

===
Archive at http://www.open.com.au/archives/radiator/
Announcements on radiator-announce at open.com.au
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo at open.com.au' with
'unsubscribe radiator' in the body of the message.