Re: [PHP-DEV] New SNMP function names

[Harrie Hazewinkel]

On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 02:13 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:


On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Harrie Hazewinkel wrote:


[1] Function names for user-level functions should be enclosed with in
the PHP_FUNCTION() macro. They should be in lowercase, with words
underscore delimited, with care taken to minimize the letter 
count.

OK, I will admit the '_' is then OK, but I rather do not use it in this
case, since I would like to use that for a more session oriented
functions.

As an example:
$sess_v1 = snmp_session(1, "localhost:161", "public");
$sess_v3 = snmp_session(3, "otherhost:161", "username", "seclevel",
"auth_protocol", "auth_passphrase",
"priv_protocol", "priv_passphrase");

$vara = snmp_get($sess_v1, "sysUpTime.0");
$varb = snmp_get($sess_v3, "sysUpTime.0");


Why didn't you introduce this right away then, if this would be the
recommend way then we don't even need the snmpv3* functions.


I had done something similar in the past, but had various
problems. The current approach is easier and allows people
already to use SNMPv3 features with a reasonable change
in their scripts.
Also I believe that approach needs some change in NET-SNMP
which I have not done yet.




more of all, it's common practise with all extensions. If you find 
some
which do not adhere to this standard, then there was taken into 
account
a BC problem.

For that alias could have been made to assist people in a migration
phase.


but adding an alias, because there was an alias for another function
just doesn't compute to me.


I repeat, I added that one in order to have for _ALL_
existing functions an SNMPv3 variant. That eases the efforts
of upgrading existing scripts and avoiding the FAQ why is
there no snmpv3 version of this function.






 This is not the case with new functions, like you added,
and thus they should stick to the guide lines.



I do not see any problem with the usage of 'v3'.


I do.


fine.




IMHO, the current naming refers quite clearly to SNMP version 3
or SNMPv3. Many people know this version of the protocol as SNMPv3.
I beleive that the original functions did neither have an '_'
character. Why is that required suddenly??


Backward compatibility for those. Maybe you noticed that we added some
aliases to other extensions because of this, but the snmp extension 
was
left alone in that. AFAIK, changing or aliasing names is on the PHP 5
todo.

So, are you saying you should have renamed them all and keeping
an alias for the BC??


Actually, yes. But there are no aliases needed for the new functions of
course.


I suggest you do that too then.




I also would like to mention that I am looking into the usage
of an SNMP-session creation and then use a single variable to
provide all SNMP-session info in a single variable for the
'data retrieval' functions. Therefore, I would like
to reserve the use of the underscore and then without a version
number.


As long as you don't break BC it's fine with me.


That is why I would like to keep it as is and how I propose it.
It would be less confusing for PHP-coders. But I know this is
a personal opinion.


argh, how can hardly readable functoin names be _more_ confusing then
nicely readable function names?


That is an opinion of you. What is nicely readable??
It is like taste, why you you prefer yellow over blue??




I am even tending to give it a -1, but there is not technical
reason. But there is neither a good technical reason
in favour of the name change.


It has little to do with a techincal reason, but more of a logical 
one.
As all functions in PHP extensions follow the same nameing style this
makes it easier for users to work with it; that's the main concern 
here,
and that's why I'd like to change the names.

I am now really curious as what is seen as easier to work with??
In to many cases I have seen that 'easier' is dictated by the
developers of the tools. In this case the C-coders not the
PHP coder/developer.


But not thinking of users is kinda weird, and I like an example of your
statement that 'easier' is dedicated by the developers as I can't think
of one.





Anyway, I suggest, you make the name changes as you all
prefer.


Cheers,

Harrie
--
Author of MOD-SNMP, enabling SNMP management of Apache HTTP server


--
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] New SNMP function names

[Derick Rethans]

On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Harrie Hazewinkel wrote:

> > [1] Function names for user-level functions should be enclosed with in
> > the PHP_FUNCTION() macro. They should be in lowercase, with words
> > underscore delimited, with care taken to minimize the letter count.
> 
> OK, I will admit the '_' is then OK, but I rather do not use it in this
> case, since I would like to use that for a more session oriented 
> functions.
> 
> As an example:
> $sess_v1 = snmp_session(1, "localhost:161", "public");
> $sess_v3 = snmp_session(3, "otherhost:161", "username", "seclevel",
> "auth_protocol", "auth_passphrase",
> "priv_protocol", "priv_passphrase");
> 
> $vara = snmp_get($sess_v1, "sysUpTime.0");
> $varb = snmp_get($sess_v3, "sysUpTime.0");

Why didn't you introduce this right away then, if this would be the 
recommend way then we don't even need the snmpv3* functions.

> > more of all, it's common practise with all extensions. If you find some
> > which do not adhere to this standard, then there was taken into account
> > a BC problem.
> 
> For that alias could have been made to assist people in a migration
> phase.

but adding an alias, because there was an alias for another function 
just doesn't compute to me.

> 
> >  This is not the case with new functions, like you added,
> > and thus they should stick to the guide lines.
> >
> 
> I do not see any problem with the usage of 'v3'.

I do.

> >> IMHO, the current naming refers quite clearly to SNMP version 3
> >> or SNMPv3. Many people know this version of the protocol as SNMPv3.
> >> I beleive that the original functions did neither have an '_'
> >> character. Why is that required suddenly??
> >
> > Backward compatibility for those. Maybe you noticed that we added some
> > aliases to other extensions because of this, but the snmp extension was
> > left alone in that. AFAIK, changing or aliasing names is on the PHP 5
> > todo.
> 
> So, are you saying you should have renamed them all and keeping
> an alias for the BC??

Actually, yes. But there are no aliases needed for the new functions of 
course.

> >> I also would like to mention that I am looking into the usage
> >> of an SNMP-session creation and then use a single variable to
> >> provide all SNMP-session info in a single variable for the
> >> 'data retrieval' functions. Therefore, I would like
> >> to reserve the use of the underscore and then without a version
> >> number.
> >
> > As long as you don't break BC it's fine with me.
> 
> That is why I would like to keep it as is and how I propose it.
> It would be less confusing for PHP-coders. But I know this is
> a personal opinion.

argh, how can hardly readable functoin names be _more_ confusing then 
nicely readable function names?

> >> I am even tending to give it a -1, but there is not technical
> >> reason. But there is neither a good technical reason
> >> in favour of the name change.
> >
> > It has little to do with a techincal reason, but more of a logical one.
> > As all functions in PHP extensions follow the same nameing style this
> > makes it easier for users to work with it; that's the main concern here,
> > and that's why I'd like to change the names.
> 
> I am now really curious as what is seen as easier to work with??
> In to many cases I have seen that 'easier' is dictated by the
> developers of the tools. In this case the C-coders not the
> PHP coder/developer.

But not thinking of users is kinda weird, and I like an example of your 
statement that 'easier' is dedicated by the developers as I can't think 
of one.

Derick

-- 

-
 Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl/ 
 PHP Magazine - PHP Magazine for Professionals   http://php-mag.net/
-


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

RE: [PHP-DEV] New SNMP function names

[John Coggeshall]

For what it's worth, I am in agreement with Derick... Consistency is
important..

Besides... A rose is still a rose, even if it's called
sweet_smelling_flower ;)



>OK, I will admit the '_' is then OK, but I rather do not use 
>it in this case, since I would like to use that for a more 
>session oriented 
>functions.

I'm 

>As an example:
>$sess_v1 = snmp_session(1, "localhost:161", "public");
>$sess_v3 = snmp_session(3, "otherhost:161", "username", "seclevel",
>"auth_protocol", "auth_passphrase",
>"priv_protocol", "priv_passphrase");
>
>$vara = snmp_get($sess_v1, "sysUpTime.0");
>$varb = snmp_get($sess_v3, "sysUpTime.0");
>
>
>> Abbreviations should not be used when they greatly decrease the
>> readability of the function name itself.
>>
>> Good:
>> 'mcrypt_enc_self_test'
>> 'mysql_list_fields'
>>
>> ...
>>
>> [2] If they are part of a "parent set" of functions, that 
>parent should
>> be included in the user function name, and should be 
>clearly related
>> to the parent program or function family. This should be 
>in the form
>> of parent_*.
>>
>> A family of 'foo' functions, for example:
>> Good:
>> 'foo_select_bar'
>> 'foo_insert_baz'
>> 'foo_delete_baz'
>>
>> ...
>>
>> [5] Variable names should be in lowercase.  Use underscores 
>to separate
>> between words.
>>
>>
>> more of all, it's common practise with all extensions. If you find 
>> some which do not adhere to this standard, then there was taken into 
>> account a BC problem.
>
>For that alias could have been made to assist people in a 
>migration phase.
>
>>  This is not the case with new functions, like you added,
>> and thus they should stick to the guide lines.
>>
>
>I do not see any problem with the usage of 'v3'.
>
>>>
  As those
 are new functions I propose to change them to the following, to be
 more
 consistent with all other functions:

 snmpv3get  -> snmp3_get
 snmpv3walk -> snmp3_walk
 snmpv3realwalk -> snmp3_real_walk (or snmp3_walk_oid)
 snmpv3set  -> snmp3_get
>>>
>>> I have mentioned this some time ago already on the list. (See 
>>> archive) I believe it is way easier for people to recognise the 
>>> SNMPv3 version by people with the current naming. On top of that I 
>>> can understand all of your concerns, but it is my opinion 
>we have to 
>>> think what is the easiest for the users/programmers of PHP.
>>
>> the proposed names are much more readable, and they follow the oci8_ 
>> convention of only using the verison number, the 'v' in your names 
>> don't add anything useful.
>
>I think it will create confusion when I am done with the new 
>more session oriented approach. That I believe is neither 
>something needed if can be avoided.
>
>>
>>> IMHO, the current naming refers quite clearly to SNMP version 3 or 
>>> SNMPv3. Many people know this version of the protocol as SNMPv3. I 
>>> beleive that the original functions did neither have an '_' 
>>> character. Why is that required suddenly??
>>
>> Backward compatibility for those. Maybe you noticed that we 
>added some 
>> aliases to other extensions because of this, but the snmp extension 
>> was left alone in that. AFAIK, changing or aliasing names is on the 
>> PHP 5 todo.
>
>So, are you saying you should have renamed them all and 
>keeping an alias for the BC??
>
>>
>>> (This states more or less the same opinion as expressed last time)
>>>
>>> I also would like to mention that I am looking into the usage of an 
>>> SNMP-session creation and then use a single variable to provide all 
>>> SNMP-session info in a single variable for the 'data retrieval' 
>>> functions. Therefore, I would like to reserve the use of the 
>>> underscore and then without a version number.
>>
>> As long as you don't break BC it's fine with me.
>
>That is why I would like to keep it as is and how I propose 
>it. It would be less confusing for PHP-coders. But I know this 
>is a personal opinion.
>
>>
>>>
 also, there is no need to introduce an alias for a newly created 
 function so I guess we just should drop it.
>>>
>>> I have created a similar set of functions as exist for SNMPv1. That 
>>> includes the alias. That makes it easier for existing scripts to be 
>>> updated with the new security featres of SNMPv3.
>>
>> We only add aliases if it is absolutely necesary, which is 
>really not 
>> the case here.
>>
 I'd like to make those proposed changes ASAP as they are 
>also added 
 in the PHP_4_3 branch which gets closer to release everyday.
>>>
>>> Personally, I do not prefer and like the name change suggested.
>>>
>>> The name snmp3_ looks to me quite weird, since the world knows this 
>>> as SNMPv3. Therefore, the use of snmpv3 is preferred.
>>
>> yeah, and oci is really called oraclecinterface, so let's fix that 
>> too!
>
>You also could have named it with the 'o' prefix.
>Do I have to laugh here??
>
>>
>>> I am even ten

Re: [PHP-DEV] New SNMP function names

[Harrie Hazewinkel]

On Thursday, December 5, 2002, at 12:17 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:


On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Harrie Hazewinkel wrote:


On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 02:49 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:


Hello,

while browsing the CVS I found that the following functions were added
to the CVS recently:

+   PHP_FE(snmpv3get, NULL)
+   PHP_FE(snmpv3walk, NULL)
+   PHP_FE(snmpv3realwalk, NULL)
+   PHP_FALIAS(snmpv3walkoid, snmpv3realwalk, NULL)
+   PHP_FE(snmpv3set, NULL)

But those functionnames don't adhere to our nameing guidelines.


Naming guidelines?? Which I look the last time at some pointers
given for this, but I could not find naming guidelines. It would help
if you can point me to the precise part defining this.


I quote: (from php4/CODING_STANDARDS)

[1] Function names for user-level functions should be enclosed with in
the PHP_FUNCTION() macro. They should be in lowercase, with words
underscore delimited, with care taken to minimize the letter count.


OK, I will admit the '_' is then OK, but I rather do not use it in this
case, since I would like to use that for a more session oriented 
functions.

As an example:
$sess_v1 = snmp_session(1, "localhost:161", "public");
$sess_v3 = snmp_session(3, "otherhost:161", "username", "seclevel",
   "auth_protocol", "auth_passphrase",
   "priv_protocol", "priv_passphrase");

$vara = snmp_get($sess_v1, "sysUpTime.0");
$varb = snmp_get($sess_v3, "sysUpTime.0");


Abbreviations should not be used when they greatly decrease the
readability of the function name itself.

Good:
'mcrypt_enc_self_test'
'mysql_list_fields'

...

[2] If they are part of a "parent set" of functions, that parent should
be included in the user function name, and should be clearly related
to the parent program or function family. This should be in the form
of parent_*.

A family of 'foo' functions, for example:
Good:
'foo_select_bar'
'foo_insert_baz'
'foo_delete_baz'

...

[5] Variable names should be in lowercase.  Use underscores to separate
between words.


more of all, it's common practise with all extensions. If you find some
which do not adhere to this standard, then there was taken into account
a BC problem.


For that alias could have been made to assist people in a migration
phase.


 This is not the case with new functions, like you added,
and thus they should stick to the guide lines.



I do not see any problem with the usage of 'v3'.




 As those
are new functions I propose to change them to the following, to be 
more
consistent with all other functions:

snmpv3get  -> snmp3_get
snmpv3walk -> snmp3_walk
snmpv3realwalk -> snmp3_real_walk (or snmp3_walk_oid)
snmpv3set  -> snmp3_get

I have mentioned this some time ago already on the list. (See archive)
I believe it is way easier for people to recognise the SNMPv3
version by people with the current naming. On top of that I can
understand all of your concerns, but it is my opinion we have to think
what is the easiest for the users/programmers of PHP.


the proposed names are much more readable, and they follow the oci8_
convention of only using the verison number, the 'v' in your names don't
add anything useful.


I think it will create confusion when I am done with the new
more session oriented approach. That I believe is neither something
needed if can be avoided.




IMHO, the current naming refers quite clearly to SNMP version 3
or SNMPv3. Many people know this version of the protocol as SNMPv3.
I beleive that the original functions did neither have an '_'
character. Why is that required suddenly??


Backward compatibility for those. Maybe you noticed that we added some
aliases to other extensions because of this, but the snmp extension was
left alone in that. AFAIK, changing or aliasing names is on the PHP 5
todo.


So, are you saying you should have renamed them all and keeping
an alias for the BC??




(This states more or less the same opinion as expressed last time)

I also would like to mention that I am looking into the usage
of an SNMP-session creation and then use a single variable to
provide all SNMP-session info in a single variable for the
'data retrieval' functions. Therefore, I would like
to reserve the use of the underscore and then without a version
number.


As long as you don't break BC it's fine with me.


That is why I would like to keep it as is and how I propose it.
It would be less confusing for PHP-coders. But I know this is
a personal opinion.






also, there is no need to introduce an alias for a newly created
function so I guess we just should drop it.


I have created a similar set of functions as exist for SNMPv1.
That includes the alias. That makes it easier for existing scripts
to be updated with the new security featres of SNMPv3.


We only add aliases if it is absolutely necesary, which is really not
the case here.


I'd like to make those proposed changes ASAP as th

Re: [PHP-DEV] New SNMP function names

[Derick Rethans]

On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Harrie Hazewinkel wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 02:49 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:
> 
> > Hello,
> >
> > while browsing the CVS I found that the following functions were added
> > to the CVS recently:
> >
> > +   PHP_FE(snmpv3get, NULL)
> > +   PHP_FE(snmpv3walk, NULL)
> > +   PHP_FE(snmpv3realwalk, NULL)
> > +   PHP_FALIAS(snmpv3walkoid, snmpv3realwalk, NULL)
> > +   PHP_FE(snmpv3set, NULL)
> >
> > But those functionnames don't adhere to our nameing guidelines.
> 
> Naming guidelines?? Which I look the last time at some pointers
> given for this, but I could not find naming guidelines. It would help
> if you can point me to the precise part defining this.

I quote: (from php4/CODING_STANDARDS)

[1] Function names for user-level functions should be enclosed with in
the PHP_FUNCTION() macro. They should be in lowercase, with words
underscore delimited, with care taken to minimize the letter count.
Abbreviations should not be used when they greatly decrease the
readability of the function name itself.

Good:
'mcrypt_enc_self_test'
'mysql_list_fields'

...

[2] If they are part of a "parent set" of functions, that parent should
be included in the user function name, and should be clearly related
to the parent program or function family. This should be in the form
of parent_*.

A family of 'foo' functions, for example:
Good:
'foo_select_bar'
'foo_insert_baz'
'foo_delete_baz'

...

[5] Variable names should be in lowercase.  Use underscores to separate
between words.


more of all, it's common practise with all extensions. If you find some 
which do not adhere to this standard, then there was taken into account 
a BC problem. This is not the case with new functions, like you added, 
and thus they should stick to the guide lines.

> 
> >  As those
> > are new functions I propose to change them to the following, to be more
> > consistent with all other functions:
> >
> > snmpv3get  -> snmp3_get
> > snmpv3walk -> snmp3_walk
> > snmpv3realwalk -> snmp3_real_walk (or snmp3_walk_oid)
> > snmpv3set  -> snmp3_get
> 
> I have mentioned this some time ago already on the list. (See archive)
> I believe it is way easier for people to recognise the SNMPv3
> version by people with the current naming. On top of that I can
> understand all of your concerns, but it is my opinion we have to think
> what is the easiest for the users/programmers of PHP.

the proposed names are much more readable, and they follow the oci8_ 
convention of only using the verison number, the 'v' in your names don't 
add anything useful. 

> IMHO, the current naming refers quite clearly to SNMP version 3
> or SNMPv3. Many people know this version of the protocol as SNMPv3.
> I beleive that the original functions did neither have an '_'
> character. Why is that required suddenly??

Backward compatibility for those. Maybe you noticed that we added some 
aliases to other extensions because of this, but the snmp extension was 
left alone in that. AFAIK, changing or aliasing names is on the PHP 5 
todo.

> (This states more or less the same opinion as expressed last time)
> 
> I also would like to mention that I am looking into the usage
> of an SNMP-session creation and then use a single variable to
> provide all SNMP-session info in a single variable for the
> 'data retrieval' functions. Therefore, I would like
> to reserve the use of the underscore and then without a version
> number.

As long as you don't break BC it's fine with me.

> 
> > also, there is no need to introduce an alias for a newly created
> > function so I guess we just should drop it.
> 
> I have created a similar set of functions as exist for SNMPv1.
> That includes the alias. That makes it easier for existing scripts
> to be updated with the new security featres of SNMPv3.

We only add aliases if it is absolutely necesary, which is really not 
the case here.

> > I'd like to make those proposed changes ASAP as they are also added in
> > the PHP_4_3 branch which gets closer to release everyday.
> 
> Personally, I do not prefer and like the name change suggested.
> 
> The name snmp3_ looks to me quite weird, since the world
> knows this as SNMPv3. Therefore, the use of snmpv3 is preferred.

yeah, and oci is really called oraclecinterface, so let's fix that too!

> I am even tending to give it a -1, but there is not technical
> reason. But there is neither a good technical reason
> in favour of the name change.

It has little to do with a techincal reason, but more of a logical one. 
As all functions in PHP extensions follow the same nameing style this 
makes it easier for users to work with it; that's the main concern here, 
and that's why I'd like to change the names.

Derick

-- 

-
 Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl/ 
 PHP Magazine - PHP Magazine for 

Re: [PHP-DEV] New SNMP function names

[Harrie Hazewinkel]

Hi all,

(sorry if you receive it duplicate, but it did not seem to make the list
last time.)

On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 02:49 PM, Derick Rethans wrote:


Hello,

while browsing the CVS I found that the following functions were added
to the CVS recently:

+   PHP_FE(snmpv3get, NULL)
+   PHP_FE(snmpv3walk, NULL)
+   PHP_FE(snmpv3realwalk, NULL)
+   PHP_FALIAS(snmpv3walkoid, snmpv3realwalk, NULL)
+   PHP_FE(snmpv3set, NULL)

But those functionnames don't adhere to our nameing guidelines.


Naming guidelines?? Which I look the last time at some pointers
given for this, but I could not find naming guidelines. It would help
if you can point me to the precise part defining this.


 As those
are new functions I propose to change them to the following, to be more
consistent with all other functions:

snmpv3get  -> snmp3_get
snmpv3walk -> snmp3_walk
snmpv3realwalk -> snmp3_real_walk (or snmp3_walk_oid)
snmpv3set  -> snmp3_get




I have mentioned this some time ago already on the list. (See archive)
I believe it is way easier for people to recognise the SNMPv3
version by people with the current naming. On top of that I can
understand all of your concerns, but it is my opinion we have to think
what is the easiest for the users/programmers of PHP.

IMHO, the current naming refers quite clearly to SNMP version 3
or SNMPv3. Many people know this version of the protocol as SNMPv3.
I beleive that the original functions did neither have an '_'
character. Why is that required suddenly??

(This states more or less the same opinion as expressed last time)

I also would like to mention that I am looking into the usage
of an SNMP-session creation and then use a single variable to
provide all SNMP-session info in a single variable for the
'data retrieval' functions. Therefore, I would like
to reserve the use of the underscore and then without a version
number.


also, there is no need to introduce an alias for a newly created
function so I guess we just should drop it.


I have created a similar set of functions as exist for SNMPv1.
That includes the alias. That makes it easier for existing scripts
to be updated with the new security featres of SNMPv3.



I'd like to make those proposed changes ASAP as they are also added in
the PHP_4_3 branch which gets closer to release everyday.


Personally, I do not prefer and like the name change suggested.

The name snmp3_ looks to me quite weird, since the world
knows this as SNMPv3. Therefore, the use of snmpv3 is preferred.
I am even tending to give it a -1, but there is not technical
reason. But there is neither a good technical reason
in favour of the name change.

On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 03:10 PM, Dan Kalowsky wrote:


+1 for me

Although I do remember the reasoning for it, it doesn't mean I like 
the  use of the snmpv3 naming scheme either.  So if anyone has any 
better  suggestions for these, I'd still like to hear them.

I have added them above.



Consistency is always good and adding aliases for newly added functions 
seems
like a recipe for bloat & confusion.

Why?? It now provides for the exsiting scripts always the same
conversion to start using SNMPv3. Without the alias als the function
name must be changed.


+1 on the proposed changes.



Harrie
--
Author of MOD-SNMP, enabling SNMP management of Apache HTTP server


--
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

RE: [PHP-DEV] New SNMP function names

[John Coggeshall]

+1


>-Original Message-
>From: Ilia A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
>Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 3:23 PM
>To: Derick Rethans; PHP Developers Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] New SNMP function names
>
>
>Consistency is always good and adding aliases for newly added 
>functions seems 
>like a recipe for bloat & confusion. 
>+1 on the proposed changes.
>
>Ilia
>
>On December 4, 2002 08:49 am, Derick Rethans wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> while browsing the CVS I found that the following functions 
>were added 
>> to the CVS recently:
>>
>> +   PHP_FE(snmpv3get, NULL)
>> +   PHP_FE(snmpv3walk, NULL)
>> +   PHP_FE(snmpv3realwalk, NULL)
>> +   PHP_FALIAS(snmpv3walkoid, snmpv3realwalk, NULL)
>> +   PHP_FE(snmpv3set, NULL)
>>C
>> But those functionnames don't adhere to our nameing guidelines. As 
>>those  are new functions I propose to change them to the 
>following, to 
>>be more  consistent with all other functions:
>>
>> snmpv3get  -> snmp3_get
>> snmpv3walk -> snmp3_walk
>> snmpv3realwalk -> snmp3_real_walk (or snmp3_walk_oid)
>> snmpv3set  -> snmp3_get
>>
>> also, there is no need to introduce an alias for a newly created 
>> function so I guess we just should drop it.
>>
>> I'd like to make those proposed changes ASAP as they are 
>also added in 
>> the PHP_4_3 branch which gets closer to release everyday.
>>
>> regards,
>> Derick
>
>
>
>-- 
>PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
>To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List <http://www.php.net/>
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] New SNMP function names

[Ilia A.]

Consistency is always good and adding aliases for newly added functions seems 
like a recipe for bloat & confusion. 
+1 on the proposed changes.

Ilia

On December 4, 2002 08:49 am, Derick Rethans wrote:
> Hello,
>
> while browsing the CVS I found that the following functions were added
> to the CVS recently:
>
> +   PHP_FE(snmpv3get, NULL)
> +   PHP_FE(snmpv3walk, NULL)
> +   PHP_FE(snmpv3realwalk, NULL)
> +   PHP_FALIAS(snmpv3walkoid, snmpv3realwalk, NULL)
> +   PHP_FE(snmpv3set, NULL)
>C
> But those functionnames don't adhere to our nameing guidelines. As those
> are new functions I propose to change them to the following, to be more
> consistent with all other functions:
>
> snmpv3get  -> snmp3_get
> snmpv3walk -> snmp3_walk
> snmpv3realwalk -> snmp3_real_walk (or snmp3_walk_oid)
> snmpv3set  -> snmp3_get
>
> also, there is no need to introduce an alias for a newly created
> function so I guess we just should drop it.
>
> I'd like to make those proposed changes ASAP as they are also added in
> the PHP_4_3 branch which gets closer to release everyday.
>
> regards,
> Derick



-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Re: [PHP-DEV] New SNMP function names

[Dan Kalowsky]

+1 for me

Although I do remember the reasoning for it, it doesn't mean I like the  
use of the snmpv3 naming scheme either.  So if anyone has any better  
suggestions for these, I'd still like to hear them.

On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 08:49 AM, Derick Rethans wrote:

Hello,

while browsing the CVS I found that the following functions were added
to the CVS recently:

+   PHP_FE(snmpv3get, NULL)
+   PHP_FE(snmpv3walk, NULL)
+   PHP_FE(snmpv3realwalk, NULL)
+   PHP_FALIAS(snmpv3walkoid, snmpv3realwalk, NULL)
+   PHP_FE(snmpv3set, NULL)

But those functionnames don't adhere to our nameing guidelines. As  
those
are new functions I propose to change them to the following, to be more
consistent with all other functions:

snmpv3get  -> snmp3_get
snmpv3walk -> snmp3_walk
snmpv3realwalk -> snmp3_real_walk (or snmp3_walk_oid)
snmpv3set  -> snmp3_get

also, there is no need to introduce an alias for a newly created
function so I guess we just should drop it.

I'd like to make those proposed changes ASAP as they are also added in
the PHP_4_3 branch which gets closer to release everyday.

regards,
Derick

--  

--- 
--
 Derick Rethans  
http://derickrethans.nl/
 JDI Media Solutions  
http://www.jdimedia.nl/
 PHP Magazine - PHP Magazine for Professionals
http://php-mag.net/
--- 
--


--
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

>---<
Dan Kalowsky"Cause fear is strong and love's
http://www.deadmime.org/~dankfor everyone, who isn't me."
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  - "Burden In My Hand",
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Soundgarden


--
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

[PHP-DEV] New SNMP function names

[Derick Rethans]

Hello,

while browsing the CVS I found that the following functions were added 
to the CVS recently:

+   PHP_FE(snmpv3get, NULL)
+   PHP_FE(snmpv3walk, NULL)
+   PHP_FE(snmpv3realwalk, NULL)
+   PHP_FALIAS(snmpv3walkoid, snmpv3realwalk, NULL)
+   PHP_FE(snmpv3set, NULL)

But those functionnames don't adhere to our nameing guidelines. As those 
are new functions I propose to change them to the following, to be more 
consistent with all other functions:

snmpv3get  -> snmp3_get
snmpv3walk -> snmp3_walk
snmpv3realwalk -> snmp3_real_walk (or snmp3_walk_oid)
snmpv3set  -> snmp3_get

also, there is no need to introduce an alias for a newly created 
function so I guess we just should drop it.

I'd like to make those proposed changes ASAP as they are also added in 
the PHP_4_3 branch which gets closer to release everyday.

regards,
Derick

-- 

-
 Derick Rethans http://derickrethans.nl/ 
 JDI Media Solutions http://www.jdimedia.nl/
 PHP Magazine - PHP Magazine for Professionals   http://php-mag.net/
-


-- 
PHP Development Mailing List 
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php