Re: On the opening of sockets

On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 15:23:40 +0200 Magnus wrote:
MF> I have uploaded a new proposal in patch 1282566 and hope I can get some
MF> feedback on it.
MF>
MF> This is the chance to argue some more about the work.

Ok, I'll bite.

> netsnmp_tdomain.f_create_from_tstring have an additional
> parameter. This is unavoidable.

It has to be avoidable. We aren't going to change an existing API. Add a new
one instead, and wrap one in the other.

> If the default domain comes from the database then the
> mapping of addresses that start with / to unix is disabled.
> This is due to the fact that IPX addresses are allowed to be
> specified with only a port number, ie snmpd
> '--defDomain=snmp ipx' /36879 should listen to IPX
> port
> 36879 and not unix domain socket /36879.

Sorry, we'er unix folks, so unless unix domain transport is completely
disables, '/' defaults to it. I'd even argue that even in the absence of unix
domain support, ipx transports must be explicitly stated (eg "ipx:/36879").

I didn't actually look at the patch, just the tracker comments, so I can't
comment on the code...

--
Robert Story; NET-SNMP Junkie
Support: <http://www.net-snmp.org/> <irc://irc.freenode.net/#net-snmp>
Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=net-snmp-coders>

You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions,
and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl
_______________________________________________
Net-snmp-coders mailing list
Net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/...et-snmp-coders