Re: how to return no such instance for delegated requests

hai,

> M> Currently we support GET and GETNEXT only. Anyway to support GET-BULK
> M> using the table handler what should we do? Should we add bulk-to-next
> M> handler?
>
> Yep. In fact, it's probably already being done for you.
>

Does this mean that in our handler is it enough to have a case for
MODE_GETBULK under switch(reqinfo->mode) and write the code? Or is it that
the GETBULK requests will be converted to GETNEXT requests by the
bulk-to-next handler itself and so we don't see GETBULK requests in our
handler?

Regarding avoiding queries for next column even though it violates the
standard, can you suggest something? Particularly, why does setting the
error SNMP_ERR_NOSUCHINSTANCE or SNMP_ERR_NOSUCHOBJECT with and without
delegating behave differently? In the former case the request for the next
subtree is sent but it is not the case with the latter.


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-coders mailing list
Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/...et-snmp-coders