On 22 December 2010 05:18, Wes Hardaker <harda...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 10:47:10 +0100, Joel Hansell >>>>>> <joel.hans...@gmail.com> said: > > JH> Please don't put a table within a table. I'm pretty sure it's not a > JH> legal MIB construct, and it would certainly break a lot of things. > > For the record: you're right, it's not legal :-)
And your proposed solution (two separate tables, linked by a shared index) is the Right Thing To Do. Note that from an agent MIB module implementation perspective, all that is required is to maintain a common data structure to hold the contents of the two tables. They can be impemented completely separately, without reference to each other. The simple fact that they are both working from the same underlying data is sufficient to provide the necessary link between them. Dave ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Forrester recently released a report on the Return on Investment (ROI) of Google Apps. They found a 300% ROI, 38%-56% cost savings, and break-even within 7 months. Over 3 million businesses have gone Google with Google Apps: an online email calendar, and document program that's accessible from your browser. Read the Forrester report: http://p.sf.net/sfu/googleapps-sfnew _______________________________________________ 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
