On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 12:39 -0400, Robert Story wrote: > DS> What would be the disadvantages of calculating > DS> the next alarm time *before* invoking the callback > DS> routine (rather than afterwards)? > > As far as backwards compatability, it could cause things to be > called more sooner than desired.
Called sooner than expected, rather than desired, I suspect. My gut feeling is that most callbacks are probably sufficiently short that the difference between pre- and post-calculation would be minimal. > I've no objections to such a mode, but I'd say it should be an option > (defaulting to the current behavior, for now). It should *definitely* be one of a number of possible options. I'm inclined to suggest that this is probably the more natural behaviour, and hence what people will tend to expect anyway. But we can worry about the choice of default once the basic functionality is in place. > DS> That would allow a more regular invocation of > DS> such routines, without this sort of drift. > > <nitpick>well, it wouldn't elminate it, but it would greatly > reduce it.</nitpick> Like you've greatly reduced (but not elmnated) the number of 'i's in "eliminate", I presume ? :-) (And anyone who uses a phrase like "more sooner" should think long and hard before starting to nitpick with the resident Net-SNMP pedant!) Dave ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-users mailing list Net-snmp-users@lists.sourceforge.net Please see the following page to unsubscribe or change other options: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-users
