On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:02:54 +0000 Dave wrote: DS> Yes - but I wasn't aware that it had been generally agreed.
True enough. Hopefully this thread will rectify that. DS> And I'm not at all happy at the impression that this is being presented as DS> a fait accompli, without a proper discussion first. Also true. On the plus side, nothing has actually be done yet. And it's not like I'm trying to sneak something in - I've been talking about this for at least a year. This is just the first time that you've had time to actually look at what I've been up to lately. And you are quite right, a major change like this does need to be discussed here on the list. I think a mechanism to have the agent use a new state map will go in, but as a result of this discussion it could be any one of: a) a full replacement, w/a helper for existing modules b) an addition, with an ifdef to switch between the two. default tbd c) an addition, with the internals made generic so that it can be determined at runtime, or perhaps both be used simultaneously. I like c, but I don't know how easy it would be to pull off... DS> I'd be particularly interested in hearing what Wes thinks about this. Originally, he was the one that was supposed to be doing the agent internals while I was doing MfD. But he got distracted and the helper allowed me to fake it. So he's probably somewhere between a and c. -- 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
