> On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 00:12:37 +0200 Thomas wrote:
> TA> > WH> Robert> If so, would could use a new token, or require an extra
> TA> > WH> Robert> parameter to turn on partial matching. But I couldn't
> think
> TA> > WH> Robert> of any off the top of my head.
I vote for oid.*.
Alex
---
> "TA" == Thomas Anders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
TA> There seems to have been a 2:1 for applying the patch as-is, back then.
Oh, and FYI you were misreading my vote I think. It would have been
1:2 with my hard-to-read-negativity correctly interpreted. ;-)
--
Wes Hardaker
Sparta, Inc.
-
> "RS" == Robert Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
RS> -p
RS> -t
RS> oid.*
Honestly, I don't care that much. I simply required a signaling
mechanism.
I'm fine with any of those. I do agree that oid.* is more intuitive
for the users. And as long as we document that oid.*.oid isn't legal,
I
On 21/09/06, Toth, Gregory S <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The void **my_loop_context appears to be a way to pass the current
> position in the table (possibly an interator) from the
> get_first_data_point method to the get_next_data_point method (and to
> subsequent get_next_data_point calls) unti
I think I figured it out
The void **my_loop_context appears to be a way to pass the current
position in the table (possibly an interator) from the
get_first_data_point method to the get_next_data_point method (and to
subsequent get_next_data_point calls) until the end of the table is
reached.
Dave Shield wrote:
> oid.*
> [...]
> A simple trailing wildcard is intuitively obvious IMO
Is it a simple trailing wildcard? Or rather a period and a wildcard? :-)
Is there a subtle (or not so, for any shell addicts) difference between
"oid.*" (doesn't match oid itself?) and "oid*" (matches oid it
> So this feature is in, with a '-t' flag to indicate partial matching.
> Apparently 't' is for 'tree'. I think '-p' for partial/prefix is more
> intuitive,
That illustrates my objection perfectly.
Either choice is fairly logical, so the use has to try and remember
(or look up) what the exact opt
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 00:12:37 +0200 Thomas wrote:
TA> > WH> Robert> If so, would could use a new token, or require an extra
TA> > WH> Robert> parameter to turn on partial matching. But I couldn't think
TA> > WH> Robert> of any off the top of my head.
TA>
TA> There seems to have been a 2:1 for apply
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 09:43:24 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> What the handler needs is "some way" of retrieving the data for a
DS> particular row.
DS> This is the role of 'my_data_context'. The details of "some way" are
DS> up to you.
DS>
DS> The most common approach is to have this variable point directl
On 20/09/06, Graeme Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However once get_first/get_next has finished, the table_handler is
> called to return the data.
> Should I copy the required row of data found in get_first/get_next (into
> my_data_context?) so that when the table_handler is called it is
> gua
I validated my mib with the tool that you have specified I got the following error …2329 SYNTAX OCTET STRING { (1) syntax error, unexpected '{', expecting STATUS None("NA"),
I will use any one of the option you have spe
On 21/09/06, Jayaprakasha Guddenahalli Naganna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In rfc2578 "Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)" it is
> mentioned that enumeration is not supported for OCTET STRING ,
> I have OID designed as follows,
> CountryCode OBJECT-TYPE
> SYNTAX
In rfc2578 “Structure of Management Information Version 2 (SMIv2)” it is mentioned that enumeration is not supported for OCTET STRING , Restrictions to Refinement of object syntax range enumeration size - - --- INT
13 matches
Mail list logo
