Thanks for your swift reply, Magnus.
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 13:20 +0200, Magnus Fromreide wrote:
> > + * mg 17-May-2007: This must be done in the case of error
> > + * packages as well, cf. section 4.1.2 of rfc 1067.
>
> This is nice as a commit comment but I do not like it in the code. I
> hope that would be OK with you? Also, 1067 seems to be a tad old as base
> for new work, I think that at least rfc 1157 should be used.
Of course that's OK.
> > */
> > - } else for (var = vars, request = requests;
> > + }
> > + for (var = vars, request = requests;
> > request && var;
> > request = request->next, var = var->next_variable) {
> > /*
>
> But when I look at the code it all seems a little odd.
> You are quite right that it should handle errors in a better way but I
> am unconvinced that this is the right way to solve this, especially if
> the GetRequest the proxy got was a v2 request that contained entities
> outside the proxied case. I am somewhat surprised that I can't find more
> about this case in rfc 3584 but I might just fail to look hard enough.
>
Yes, I was only thinking of v1. Please extend this as needed for v2.
> If the purpose of this chunk is to clarify, wouldn't a result of
>
> while (req && req->index != idx)
> req = req->next;
> if (!req)
> return SNMPERR_NO_VARS;
>
> be even clearer?
>
Yes, it would.
Michael
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-coders mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
