[ First - *please* don't mail me privately, without copying
any responses to the mailing list. I don't have the time
or inclination to offer private, unpaid, SNMP consultancy.
Keep discussions to the list, where others can both learn
and offer advice. Thanks. ]
On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 10:25, quhp wrote:
> Thank you for your reply!
> Because the deadline is coming ,i won't change it to C and stick to
> this unperfect method.
Fair enough.
Thomas has suggested looking at the embedded perl mechanism.
It's not something I've used myself, so I don't know whether
this would be any improvement or not.
> Now the right way i can go through , but if the operation is failed ,
> what will i do with ?
> print a message (it no use as i did ) or exit -1 (1) directly ???
Pass.
The original (one-shot) pass mechanism returns an explicit
error string (with blank implying success) for SET request.
(Though Get/GetNext are the other way round).
I've never been particularly clear how this is meant to work
when extended to the pass_persist mechanism. I'd have thought
that the uncertainty about whether to expect a response or not
would cause problems.
Checking the code, it seems to look for the same two error
strings "not-writable" or "wrong-type". I suspect that
anything else will be taken to indicate a successful assignment.
But this may well be way off - Wes?
Dave
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by Oracle Space Sweepstakes
Want to be the first software developer in space?
Enter now for the Oracle Space Sweepstakes!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7412&alloc_id=16344&op=click
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-users mailing list
Net-snmp-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Please see the following page to unsubscribe or change other options:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-users
