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.
Structurally it seems somewhat simpler, in that you could more easily
share functions between the two without having the trouble of yet a
third script to include.
Dave
_______________________________________________
networking-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
