Looking forward to this also. On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Simon Ball <[email protected]> wrote:
> I’d also add that I’ve seen a fair number of other people interested in > this. Very willing to collaborate on any this if you need, and looking > forward to seeing the contribution. > > Simon > > > On 18 Feb 2016, at 18:56, Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Pierre, > > > > In my view the best and first test of interest is your own. If you > > see that you could use it then there is a good shot others will as > > well. I think interaction with SNMP makes sense and look forward to > > checking it out if you do find time to contribute that. > > > > Thanks > > Joe > > > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Pierre Villard > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Would that be of any interest to have processors for SNMP exchanges > using > >> snmp4j? > >> > >> I was thinking about something like: > >> > >> GetSNMP > >>> possibility to do a SNMP get or a SNMP walk, the flow file would not > have > >> any content, just attributes with key = requested oid and value = > requested > >> value. > >> > >> SetSNMP > >>> do a SNMP set according to flow file / processor properties. There are > >> multiple options there, don't know what sounds best. > >> > >> If you think it could be useful, I will have a look developing that. > >> > >> Pierre > > > >
