On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 15:02:41 +0000 Dave wrote: DS> > Yes. The idea is that eventually the agent will use the baby step modes, DS> > and a helper will be created to map back for the old style modes. DS> DS> Hmmm.... I'm not sure I remember that decision. Or even the discussion DS> that presumably preceded it. And (as you might have guessed!), I don't DS> think it's a good idea.
will address in a new thread. DS> I also find this slightly at odds with your comment: DS> DS> > I'd much rather not add more states. I really think the DS> > goal should be the simplest state diagram possible. DS> DS> The existing model is significantly simpler than the state DS> diagram of the baby_steps framework. Right, and a single state would be even simpler, so let's switch to that! :-P What i mean, and I think I've already said this in another message, is that it should be as simple as possible while being easy to understand. The simpler states of the existing model is offset by the additional complexity of what each state needs to do. Most of the existing states have to handle multiple tasks. When those tasks are done varies by module. It can be confusing for a newbie. -- 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
