On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 17:14 +0100, Thomas Anders wrote: > Sounds fine. Are there any drawbacks (=change in behaviour > other than bug fixing) of this approach?
I don't think so - assuming everything works correctly, of course! The most likely area would be caching. The 'run_exec_command' routine will invoke the specified command every time it's called. A brief look at the 'get_exec_output' routine seems to indicate that it caches the most recent results. But that's a single shared cache, so relying on this behaviour isn't really very robust. A better approach would be to cache each entry independently (which is what I've done with the new "extend" mechanism). But that's definitely something for a later date. As far as 5.3 is concerned, I'd just be looking at making 'get_exec_output' invoke 'run_exec_command', and keep the same cache behaviour. (Which then also raises the question of whether "pass" output should be cached or not). Dave ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
