> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Shield
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 1:22 AM
> I'd probably offer slightly different advice.
<SNIP/>
> It doesn't really matter whether the MIB says that this is or isn't
> supported.
> What is important is whether the *code* handles this correctly.
True, but the only way to tell the difference between correctly
implemented code and the kind that works in most cases but crashes and burns in
corner cases, without the crash and burn, is to require an assertion of
functionality. Naturally, trivial MIBs shouldn't have corner cases, so the
test-and-go strategy would be acceptable there.
> I suspect this is just a difference in terminology between
> Mike and myself.
> I tend to use the term "MIB" to refer to the collection of
> managed object
> definitions, rather than the code that implements these
> objects. My guess
> is that Mike is referring to the code file as the MIB.
Yes, a bad habit of mine. Congratulations! You're using the more
correct definition and have therefore out-pedanted me, a rare feat!
> In either case, it's the person who wrote the code that
> needs to fix this.
Yep!
Mike
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-users mailing list
[email protected]
Please see the following page to unsubscribe or change other options:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-users
