On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 09:56:35 -0700 Wes wrote: WH> >>>>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 09:55:09 +0100, Dave Shield WH> >>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: WH> WH> Dave> I wondered about that, but decided against it.
I agree with Wes. WH> Dave> Leaving this code in 'table_data2.c' helps show that WH> Dave> this is a reworking of the previous 'table_data' helper. WH> Dave> The connection between 'table_data' and 'table_data2' WH> Dave> is clearer than between 'table_data' and 'tdata' IMO. The only people who care about history are the developers, and we've got cvs. For the users, distinct names are needed if the concepts/workings are different. WH> I really think that if it's a new concept then it should have a new WH> name, not one with a 2 at the end... WH> WH> Dave> And given that I've hijacked (sorry "reworked") the WH> Dave> mib2c.table_data.conf template to use the new tdata helper WH> Dave> instead - it felt important to emphasise that connection. If the way the users deals with the data is different, it should be a new conf file. Should be trivial to recover the previous table_data.conf and create a new tdata.conf. If it's just the internals that have changed, then it's debatable as to whether or not a new conf file is needed, but the source code should be renamed regardless. -- 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. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
