[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: snmpconf #4: Code reuse

My reason for leaning towards leaving them out is that while functions 
(code reuse) are nice to have, they are not strictly necessary.  And this 
proposal is already sufficiently large and complicated that the magnitude 
may deter people from adoption.  I believe that most (maybe even all) the 
current features are there for good reasons.  But that does not mean we 
should not be very cautious about adding more.


At 04:25 PM 4/2/01 -0700, you wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 02 Apr 2001 15:20:04 -0400, "Joel M. Halpern" 
> <joel@longsys.com> said:
>Joel> My own inclination is either (1) [Don't do functions] or (2) [Do
>Joel> functions].  The various "sort of" solutions that Wes described
>Joel> (including making it a capability) all seem like bad
>Joel> compromises.
>I agree completely in general.  We should simply do them ;-)
>Joel> PS:  I am slightly inclined to leave them out.
>I'd love to hear reasons behind your thoughts other than "slightly
>inclined".  IE, why not?
>Wes Hardaker
>NAI Labs
>Network Associates