On 30/05/07, Need Help <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However, I do not want to give up on the MfD configuration just yet. I was > reading about it and it says that it is the most complete configuration file > offered and that existing MIBs are being transferred over to this new > format.
*Robert* wants to see everything moved over to MfD, yes. That should not be taken as a policy statement for the project as a whole. It's definitely true that we intend to gradually move everything to the v5 handler-based mechanism, and weed out the remaining v4 UCD modules. But whether these will end up as MfD-style modules, table_data, iterator or some other approach, will probably depends on who does each particular conversion. > Based on this I would assume the MfD code should be able to do > what I want. Very possibly. If you're going to be using the MfD framework, then I'll leave answering any further questions to the others. This is not a style of code that I am familiar with (or particularly fond of either! - though I do try to keep my personal prejudices out of the way when providing advice on the lists). > Perhaps I simply do not understand what SNMP should do > regarding my two Tables. It's quite reasonable to treat these tables as completely independent. As long as you populate them with the correct information, the link between the tables will be made automatically (since the underlying data is linked). Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
