On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 21:09, Robert Story wrote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 17:07:36 +0100 Dave wrote:
> DS> I've come up with the following list of required tasks facing such
> DS> a helper. What else (or different) would it need to provide?
> DS>
> DS> SNMP-request handling:
> DS> - register (
On Thu, 05 May 2005 17:07:36 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> I've come up with the following list of required tasks facing such
DS> a helper. What else (or different) would it need to provide?
DS>
DS> SNMP-request handling:
DS> - register (and unregister) the table
DS> - add or remove a row to/fr
Dave> I've come up with the following list of required tasks facing such
Dave> a helper. What else (or different) would it need to provide?
Dave> SNMP-request handling:
Dave> - register (and unregister) the table
Dave> - add or remove a row to/from the table
Dave> - retrieve the row relating to a
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 17:07:36 +0100, Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Dave> I've come up with the following list of required tasks facing such
Dave> a helper. What else (or different) would it need to provide?
Dave> SNMP-request handling:
Dave> - register (and unregister) the table
Dav
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 17:03, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Dave> /*
> Dave> * NOTE NOTE NOTE: This helper isn't complete and is likely to
> Dave> * change somewhat over time. Specifically, the way it stores
> Dave> * data internally may change drastically.
> Dave> */
>
> Dave>
> On Tue, 03 May 2005 16:43:59 +0100, Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Dave> /*
Dave> * NOTE NOTE NOTE: This helper isn't complete and is likely to
Dave> * change somewhat over time. Specifically, the way it stores
Dave> * data internally may change drastically.
Dave> */
Dave> *That'
On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 18:42, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Anyway, I think we've never told people not to mess with the table
> structures and have even provided a few examples of being able to do
> so.
I *knew* there was something nagging me about this statement,
and I've just clicked what it was. There
On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 18:45, Robert Story wrote:
> I've run out of energy for this argument.
Most important thing first.
I'm sorry if I've been pushing you too hard on this
issue, Robert. I know how frustrating it can be when
you're trying to explain something that seems so obviously
right, and t
On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 18:28, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Dave> can I suggest that we add suitable wrappers to
> Dave> table_data and table_dataset now.
> Dave> If we then provide the same APIs for the
> Dave> table_data2/table_dataset2 helpers, that should make the
> Dave> transition significan
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 13:52:45 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 00:47, Robert Story wrote:
DS> > Think of table_container as a cake. The container conf
DS> > is red frosting.
DS>
DS> I'd regard the mib2c.container.conf as describing the bare
DS> cake. It doesn't imply any frosting at all
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:31:37 -0700 Wes wrote:
WH> Robert> Like he's paying any attention.
WH>
WH> You 2 do tend to ramble on a bit ;-)
/me falls off his chair..
WH> [...] I shouldn't need to read these discussions ;-)
WH>
WH> Of course I think I just proved I do anyway.
Gee, thanks for nothing
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:57:14 +0100, Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Dave> The public API for supplying index values has always been
Dave> via netsnmp_table_row_add_index.
Dave> That's my understanding anyway - Wes, care to correct any
Dave> errors?
Well, this is where we frequently d
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 10:16:36 -0400, Robert Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
DS> That's my understanding anyway - Wes, care to correct any errors?
Robert> Like he's paying any attention. I'd be willing to be when he
Robert> sees a thread between us that starts to get long, he stays as
Robert>
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 09:39:59 +0100, Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Dave> In which case, can I suggest that we add suitable wrappers to
Dave> table_data and table_dataset now. Keep the same internals (so
Dave> not to break backward compatability), but provide a cleaner API.
Dave> Bett
On Thu, 2005-04-28 at 00:47, Robert Story wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:11:53 +0100 Dave wrote:
> DS> I think that, like it or not, the
> DS> introduction of this config file *has* effectively
> DS> defined an API for the table_container helper.
>
> Just because a mib2c conf fil
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:11:53 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> > DS> And there's been a 'mib2c.container.conf' generator since 5.2.
DS>
DS> which I wrote following my experiences with describing that
DS> particular helper in TBB. I think that, like it or not, the
DS> introduction of this config file *has* ef
On Wed, 2005-04-27 at 15:16, Robert Story wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:57:14 +0100 Dave wrote:
> DS> http://www.net-snmp.org/dev/agent/group__table__container.html
> That describes the handler. Note that there is a single function described -
> to
> get the handler. One function does not an
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:57:14 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> > DS> In terms of public API, the main difference between table_data
DS> > DS> and table_container is in terms of how the indexing is handled.
DS> >
DS> > Actually, the real difference is that table_container doesn't have
DS> > an API at all.
DS>
On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 21:52, Robert Story wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 17:02:13 +0100 Dave wrote:
> DS> In terms of public API, the main difference between table_data
> DS> and table_container is in terms of how the indexing is handled.
>
> Actually, the real difference is that table_container do
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 17:02:13 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 16:41, Robert Story wrote:
DS> > All you've done in the container version of table_data is internally
DS> > provided the structure that the table container expects. I having nothing
DS> > against that. All I'm suggesting is th
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 10:47:27 +0100, Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Dave> I knew that stepping through the table_data lists would fail,
Dave> but that never felt to be pushed as a user-level helper.
I can't think of any case, except in the emulator that we were
providing as well, wher
On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 16:41, Robert Story wrote:
> All you've done in the container version of table_data is internally provided
> the structure that the table container expects. I having nothing against that.
> All I'm suggesting is that the API be part of table_container instead of
> table_data2.
On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 18:49, Wes Hardaker wrote:
> Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> Dave> I knew that stepping through the table_data lists would fail,
> Dave> but that never felt to be pushed as a user-level helper.
>
> I can't think of any case, except in the emulator that we were
> pr
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 10:56:03 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> Quoting Robert Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
DS> > I was thinking that mayb table_data2/table_row could just go away.
DS> > It's really just a few wrapper functions around table_container,
DS> > so I'd say move those functions into table_container, an
Quoting Robert Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I was thinking that mayb table_data2/table_row could just go away.
> It's really just a few wrapper functions around table_container,
> so I'd say move those functions into table_container, and do away
> with table_data2.
Nope. Not in favour of that.
T
Quoting Wes Hardaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But, in fact, the reason I changed it
> back was because you had committed code that I was positive
> would break existing people's code out there.
> All of their code was going to be non-compilable in the
> future which I didn't
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 20:41:47 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> Quoting Robert Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
DS> > DS> I never much liked the 'data/dataset' names anyway.
DS> > DS> If we're going to change them, I'd like a say in what to!
DS> >
DS> > I can pretty much guarantee that there won't be any issue with
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 20:41:47 +0100, Dave Shield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I think this was an executive decision by Wes because:
>>
>> 1) the table token was broken
>> 2) no easy way to fix 1 in container version
>> 3) work influences needed a working cvs, ASAP
>> 3) new container version
On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 16:57, Robert Story wrote:
> I believe so. I seem to recall that it broke the snmpd.conf 'table' token.
> Wes also pointed out that anyone wanting to look at the data itself would have
> been using the linked list pointers, thus breaking backwards compatibility.
Hmmm wher
Quoting Robert Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> DS> Hmmm where was this discussed?
>
> I think this was an executive decision by Wes because:
>
> 1) the table token was broken
> 2) no easy way to fix 1 in container version
> 3) work influences needed a working cvs, ASAP
> 3) new container version
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 16:29:44 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> I'm just getting back up to speed with what's changed
DS> with the development code during my sabbatical, and noticed
DS> that you've backed out the container-based "table_data"
DS> helper, moving this into a separate helper.
DS>
DS> The CVS c
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 17:03:33 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 16:57, Robert Story wrote:
DS> > I believe so. I seem to recall that it broke the snmpd.conf 'table'
DS> > token.
DS>
DS> Hmmm where was this discussed?
I think this was an executive decision by Wes because:
1) the tabl
32 matches
Mail list logo
