On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:43:37 +0100 Dave wrote:
DS> Let's take a step back - what's the purpose behind sending the
DS> probe at this point (opening the session) rather than later on
DS> (when it's actually used) ?
You'll have to argue with Wes on that one.
DS> What would be the implications of defaulting to "DONT_PROBE"?
Besides the hissy fits from Wes and Dave on breaking backwards compatibility.
Oh, wait a second... ;-)
DS> [I can't believe that I'm arguing to change this, having already
DS> documented this behaviour in the client-side programming chapter!]
I was rather shocked myself!
The original patch for delaying the probe (submitted against 5.0.9) actually
did do just that, and changed the semantics of the return code from snmp_open
so you could tell if the probe failed. Maybe we could do something like that in
a newly define netsnmp_open...
--
NOTE: messages sent directly to me, instead of the lists, will be deleted
unless they are requests for paid consulting services.
Robert Story; NET-SNMP Junkie
Support: <http://www.net-snmp.org/> <irc://irc.freenode.net/#net-snmp>
Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=net-snmp-coders>
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-coders mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
