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

Re: snmpconf issue #1: language versioning

We agreed future versions must be backwardly compatable.


Robert Moore wrote:
> Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but ... if you
> don't register version 1, how does a manager tell
> (by querying the Capabilities table) the difference
> between an agent implementation that supports only
> version 2 of the language, and one that supports
> both version 1 and version 2?
> Regards,
> Bob
> Bob Moore
> Advanced Design and Technology
> Application Integration Middleware Division
> IBM Software Group
> +1-919-254-4436
> remoore@us.ibm.com
> Wes Hardaker <wes@hardakers.net>@snmp.com on 04/03/2001 08:30:29 PM
> Please respond to snmpconf@snmp.com
> Sent by:  owner-snmpconf@snmp.com
> To:   snmpconf@snmp.com
> cc:
> Subject:  Re: snmpconf issue #1: language versioning
> >>>>> On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 01:35:35 -0700, Steve Waldbusser
> <waldbusser@nextbeacon.com> said:
> Steve> In the Pittsburgh meeting we agreed to #2 except that we
> Steve> wouldn't bother registering the initial version of the
> Steve> language. If we make a modification we would register that
> Steve> version. Nobody's going to put capMatch(version1) at the
> Steve> beginning of every script particularly when there's only 1
> Steve> version (and we wouldn't want to lead people to believe they
> Steve> should). When the second version comes out and you want to use
> Steve> features from it, you can first test with capMatch(version2).
> Ahh.  No one mentioned that at the last meeting when I brought it up.
> Anyway, thats fine by me.  I can't think of any reason to force a v1
> registration.  The only vague answer I can come up with is that if a
> manager was querying a cap table to see what version of a script to
> upload, it wouldn't have to match against every known version type to
> determine if it was a v1 script engine.  Minor minor point though.
> --
> Wes Hardaker
> NAI Labs
> Network Associates