Dave> As I recall (and this is going back a fair while now!), Dave> the thing that broke wasn't actually the MIB implementation Dave> code - it was the utility function for running a subcommand.
Dave> I seem to remember that I was trying to make the subcommand handling Dave> more flexible... so stripped out the caching element. Robert> When I looked at the diffs, it looked to me like you wrote new code Robert> to exec code, updated the extTable to use it, and then wrote a whole Robert> new module with the new MIB. Err... OK - if you say so. I know there was a *long* gap between updating extTable and the new EXTEND-MIB. But assuming you've looked at both sets of changes, that sounds quite possible. Robert> do you object to the principle? Revert the old table back to it's Robert> original behaviour No objection from here, no. If they're completely different utility routines, then that shouldn't affect things like the trapd sub-command handling. I'm happy to trust your judgement on this one, Robert. Dave ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please see the following page to unsubscribe or change other options: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-users
