James Carlson wrote:
Peter Memishian writes:
> But the second reason is the most important one: it wouldn't be
> compatible. Existing eventhook scripts aren't aware that this third
> argument exists, so they don't know that they need to do anything
> special. If I added a third argument, then it would run the risk of
> having those existing scripts do unexpected things.
Would it be reasonable to make the V4 and V6 action/event names distinct?
e.g., have each V6 event name end in a "_V6" or "6"?
Yes, that'd be possible. That seems roughly equivalent to using a
separate script, and you'd have to use separate logic (as the options
and such that you'd ordinarily use with dhcpinfo are separate), but
it's doable.
Is it actually an improvement? It's not clear to me, but if others
prefer this over having a separate hook script, I guess I don't have
much of a preference myself.
I think it is a better way of expressing what I was suggesting.
So we would have BIND and BIND_V6 that would be good in my opinion.
The eventhook scripts I've written in the past would certainly share a
lot of content between V4 and V6 but as you point out some of it does
need to distinguish in the action and how to get the informaiton - but
once it has the info both the V4 and V6 hook scripts I'd right would do
exactly the same with it.
So for me yes this is better than having two different scripts for v4
and v6.
--
Darren J Moffat
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
