On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Dave Shield <d.t.shi...@liverpool.ac.uk> wrote: > On 29 January 2010 15:40, Bill Fenner <fen...@gmail.com> wrote: >> My question is: is it sufficient to change all of the callers in the >> net-snmp source tree, or should I call the function with the new >> signature snmp_parse_args2() and create a helper snmp_parse_args() >> that supplies a zero? > > We cannot assume that there are no third-party applications which > make use of the existing API calls. So a new function is definitely > the way to go. > Can I suggest "netsnmp_parse_args()" rather than "snmp_parse_args2()"
Thanks, I've posted this in the patches tracker, ID 2942940. > I'd also suggest a more general "flags" parameter, rather than one > specifically for logging. (Just in case we need to extend the behaviour > of this routine in the future) In fact, while I was in there I noticed the first such user -- instead of hardcoding the list of fake argv[0]'s that mean not to zero the command line args, I added a flag for it. Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away. http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
