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's actually a comment
in the table_dataset code, stating:
/*
* NOTE NOTE NOTE: This helper isn't complete and is likely to
* change somewhat over time. Specifically, the way it stores
* data internally may change drastically.
*/
*That's* probably why I thought it acceptable to start meddling
with the internals of these two helpers. But there doesn't seem
to be anything similar within the table_data code, and I'm not
sure how reasonable it is to enforce this warning anyway.
Which brings us back to the earlier question - what API calls
would be necessary for clean access to a dataset-style helper?
We've already got netsnmp_extract_table_row_data() to retrieve
a specific row, and assorted calls to locate a given column from
within a row. So I suspect we just need the same 'get_{first,next}'
calls in order to walk the table cleanly.
Does that sound about right?
Dave
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games.
Get your fingers limbered up and give it your best shot. 4 great events, 4
opportunities to win big! Highest score wins.NEC IT Guy Games. Play to
win an NEC 61 plasma display. Visit http://www.necitguy.com/?r=20
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-coders mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
