On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 14:54:44 +0000 Dave wrote: DS> > Maybe netsnmp_inject_handler_before() ? DS> DS> I wondered about that. DS> The main reason I didn't use that API is that it seemed a bit DS> inefficient to search the handler chain when I already knew DS> where I wanted the new handler to go!
WHAT? Inefficiencies in our code? :-P DS> Maybe we need a new routine "netsnmp_inject_handler_here" DS> (or "netsnmp_inject_handler_after") which takes a handler DS> pointer, rather than a name? In this particular case I'd go with the old maxim 'working code first, optimize later'. Especially given the frequency with which the function will be called. DS> There's still the question of whether it's safe to meddle DS> with the handler chain while it's "active". Wes? As far as I know, there is concept of 'active' for a handler chain. I don't know of any handler that make assumptions about the prev/next pointers, and any that exist should be fixed to assume 'somewhere above/below me' instead. Note that the 'injectHandler' conf token can modify chains at startup. I think you're pretty safe. -- Robert Story; NET-SNMP Junkie Support: <http://www.net-snmp.org/> <irc://irc.freenode.net/#net-snmp> Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=net-snmp-coders> You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different. ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek. It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
