DS> Just to check - this should also work if you start by creating a file DS> default-table-X.m2d containing "@set $m2c_irreversible_commit=1@' DS> and the generate the code (for the first time) - yes?
RS> Errr... yes. However, the disadvantage would be that if the RS> default-table-X.m2d file exists, it is read in but not re-written. RS> So it wouldn't be populated with the other defaults available to RS> the user. So noted - I'll update the MfD discussion to mention this. Just out of interest, what was the reason for not regenerating the default-table-X.m2d file? RS> Do you really think I'd try and change the agent internals such RS> that most of the existing modules would break?? No - of course not. I said it would "cause problems" for implementing the old API style, not that such problems were insurmountable. I'm 100% sure that if it wasn't possible to fully implement "R/A/C over baby_steps", then: a) Wes would veto such a change b) You wouldn't propose it in the first place RS> I know you have a low opinion of me, but RS> I didn't think it was that low!! That's not fair! I do *NOT* have a low opinion of you. I think we've got very different ideas about how this project should move forward, and I will admit to finding that somewhat frustrating at times. But while I may disagree with some aspects of your vision, I have nothing but admiration for the amount (and quality) of the work you have put into this project. (I just wish that this enthusiasm was directed in a slightly different direction :-) ) [ I'll respond to the detailed 'baby_steps' stuff separately ] Dave ------------------------------------------------------- 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
