On 21/03/07, Makavy, Erez (Erez) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why do we have to wait for delegated sets to finish (when processing_set > !=NULL), > - if the Current request is for the same delegated sub-aagent, then there is > no problem , the sub-agent is syncronious, > and will finish the delegated request before handling the current request. > - if the request is for a different sub-agent, then there is no issue of > accessing non-current data.
What happens if the delegated set fails, and the previous values need to be restored? With the current situation, that's not going to be qa problem. But if you let a "smaller" SET be acted upon while the delegated part of a previous SET is still outstanding, the two could potentially be in conflict. For exanmple, if the first request created a row in a table (plus some other stuff), and the second request changed a value from that row. If the first request fails, then the second can't be acted on. Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
