SNMP apps tend to turn into legacy apps rather quickly.  You write it
once for some particular device and just sort of forget about it.  I don't
think breaking BC is a good idea here, so yes, if we can't do v3 by adding
optional args to the existing functions, then a new set of v3-specific
functions should probably be implemented.

Or, perhaps a whole new extension with backward compatibility functions.
I wrote the original snmp extension and will be the first to admit that it
isn't great code and could sorely use a rewrite from someone much more
familiar with SNMP than I.

-Rasmus

On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Harrie Hazewinkel wrote:

>
>
> --On Thursday, September 5, 2002 10:52 AM -0700 Rasmus Lerdorf
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > We have many examples of configure checks that drive #ifdef'ed code to
> > take care of minor differences between versions of a library.  Are the
> > changes really so significant that we can't do this cleanly here?
>
> The changes are not extreemly significant. I am working on
> it to create a diff from the info I got from another.
> Also within the NET-SNMP package the attempt is started to do
> better namespace protection. This will cause also various functions
> have their name changed (currently mainly structure type).
>
>
> However, if SNMPv3 support is added the functions of the PHP language
> change significant due to many extra options. Currently SNMPv3 is
> full standard and SNMPv1 is historic within the IETF.
> This reases the question whether the PHP langauge may be changed??
> Or do we need to add the SNMPv3 functionality with an snmpv3 prefix
> instead of the snmp prefix.
>
>
>
> >
> > -Rasmus
> >
> > On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Harrie Hazewinkel wrote:
> >
> >> HI,
> >>
> >> I was working on getting PHP with SNMP compiled with the
> >> latest NET-SNMP 5.0.4 (was UCD-SNMP). It does not work.
> >> I was willing to fix this problem, however, I beleive it
> >> could cause backwards compatibility problems if the
> >> UCD-SNMP must be kept.
> >>
> >> the options are (as i recognise),
> >> 1) drop UCD-SNMP support since the NET-SNMP is just the name change
> >>       plus many other good features.
> >> 2) Make sure both work with IFDEF's.
> >> 3) Add an extra SNMP portion that works with NET-SNMP.
> >>
> >>
> >> Personnally I think 1 would be the best choice, but I have also
> >> created once an SNMPv3 extension for PHP with SNMP and therefore
> >> 3 could be choosen and have then the new SNMPv3 features.
> >>
> >>
> >> What do others think??
> >>
> >>
> >> Harrie
> >>
> >> Internet Management Consulting
> >> mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]                   http://www.lisanza.net/
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Author of MOD-SNMP, enabling SNMP management the Apache HTTP server
> >>
> >> --
> >> PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
> >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Harrie
>
> Internet Management Consulting
> mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]                   http://www.lisanza.net/
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Author of MOD-SNMP, enabling SNMP management the Apache HTTP server
>


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to