On 2006-07-21 at 14:52 +0200, Simon Leinen wrote: > What I don't understand is why you even need the `TableName' - it > should be sufficient that the `Header' and `RetrieveField' have the > same index structure, right?
Because it's easier to find stuff by working from the TableName; there's much less ASN.1 understanding required and my ASN.1 is ofttimes weak. Also, it lets the <foo>.ok state dump have a label indicating namespace so I don't need to worry about globally unique names, only relatively unique. (Does ASN.1 actually require global uniqueness?) So I have an mrtg.ok which contains: [EMAIL PROTECTED] dfTable.dfFileSys /vol/mail/ 5 > In some cases there may not even be a common table, e.g. you may want > to refer to ifDescr (from ifTable) and retrieve ifHCInOctets (from > ifXTable). Are these guaranteed to use the same indexing? If so, then yes my patch imposes too tight a constraint. :^( -- "Everything has three factors: politics, money, and the right way to do it. In that order." -- Gary Donahue -- Unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Help mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Archive http://lists.ee.ethz.ch/mrtg-developers
