On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 10:44:29 +0000 Dave wrote: DS> On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 11:01 +0100, Thomas Anders wrote: DS> > Dave Shield wrote: DS> DS> > > So how is this selection made, and how are we planning to alert people DS> > > to the existance of the two alternatives. DS> > DS> > Selection process (from DS> > http://www.net-snmp.org/support/irc/net-snmp.log.2005-11-5.html): DS> > DS> > 1) new code DS> > 2) --with-cflags=-DDISMAN_EVENT_OLD_IMPLEMENTATION DS> DS> Yuck!! DS> Sorry - I *MUCH* prefer the previous approach.
No that I never said this was the final result.. it's just the state of the code today. As more and more stuff gets rewritten, this is going to pop up again. I'd hate to see configure continue to bloat with lots of little options for selecting implementations. I'd like to see if we can come up with some more generic to deal with this. Any ideas? DS> > or 3) specify individual implementation files, instead of a 'group DS> > header' DS> DS> How is that supposed to work? DS> The Event MIB is an integrated entity - the various tables rely on the DS> internals of each other. Or at least my code does, and I'd expect the DS> same for Wes'. Trying to mix-n-match the old and new implementations DS> just won't work. DS> I trust that I've misunderstood what it being suggested here? I was not suggesting mix-n-match. I meant that each of the modules in the old-implementation would be specified in the mib modules. IMHO, the individual files should be explicit in their dependencies and conflicts, so that if someone included a single code file, instead of using one of the 'group' headers, things would work. I've recently done work on the new interface code towards this goal. DS> Could you perhaps summarise the issues affecting the previous approach DS> that led up to this change? DS> DS> [...] I'm suggesting that this needs to be *discussed* first. DS> DS> I'm not very happy that such a change was made over the weekend, DS> with absolutely no discussion on the coders list, or even a mention DS> after the fact. There was discussion. As Wes said, we decided the default should be the new code. Those who are using existing configure options shouldn't end up with the old code. -- 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.Net email is sponsored by: Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
