On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:20:55 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 18:18, Wes Hardaker wrote:
DS> > 5) thus, I would choose one of:
DS> > a) have the new behaviour to probe later with a new flag to probe
DS> > immed.
DS>
DS> Well, we've already got a flag to do this (sort of).
DS> It's called "DONT_PROBE".
DS> Or rather, it's the *absence* of the "DONT_PROBE" flag.
DS>
DS> If we set DONT_PROBE as part of "snmp_sess_init", then that
DS> would make the default behaviour to be probing later.
DS> But an application developer could always clear this flag
DS> before calling "snmp_open", and that would trigger an
DS> immediate probe.
Ok, that's what I've got ready to be checked in. One more twist - the
DONT_PROBE flag will be cleared at the end of snmp_open(). Otherwise the probe
will never happen, even when a pdu is sent. (The other option would be to
temporarily clear it when we see that we need discovery, and then restore it.
But then it doesn't really mean don't probe, does it?)
--
NOTE: messages sent directly to me, instead of the lists, will be deleted
unless they are requests for paid consulting services.
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-coders mailing list
Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
