On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 10:28:13 -0700 Wes wrote:
WH> Robert> It is an integer, so it would allow negative numbers. If it's
WH> Robert> common, then that might be an argument for just leaving it as
WH> Robert> is.
WH>
WH> That's probably what I'd do. There is no reason, IMHO, not to and in
WH> fact i
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:48:19 -0400, Robert Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
WH> 2) does the current API allow for negative numbers in the API, or is
WH> unsigned currently? I don't see a problem with negative numbers.
WH> negative numbers for priority levels are actually quiet common in
WH>
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:44:13 -0700 Wes wrote:
WH> 1) has any mib2c.conf file produced code that used the API that
WH>someone may have twiddled with, or is it something they had to
WH>intentionally use?
They would have had to intentionally use it.
WH> 2) does the current API allow for nega
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 12:52:02 -0400, Robert Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Robert> Unfortunately, I made a poor decision for the default priority
Robert> used by the wrapper function (I used 0). The way the code is
Robert> written, anyone wanting a particular callback to be called
Robert> bef
Summary
---
Back before 5.1, I added a priority field to the callback structure, to allow
some callbacks to be called before others without depending on the order in
which they were registered. A new registration function was created, and the
previous one was changed to be a simple wrapper.
Un
