Re: What about a new `mib' command?

Juergen Schoenwaelder (schoenw@cs.utwente.nl)
Wed, 22 Jan 1997 22:32:16 +0100

Buz Owen <ado@BBN.COM> said:

Buz> I didn't see explicit an handle delete feature.. Surely you
Buz> need one. Perhaps "rename <handle> {}", as for procs? :-)

The rename command will work automatically. (rename should also work
for all other handles, such as SNMP session handles)

Buz> The suggested new syntax and design looks very nice, but I'd
Buz> prefer to see compatibility with the old version of the mib
Buz> command so that exiisting scripts aren't broken by the
Buz> changes.

I would like to push people a bit to make the changes as soon as
possible. My own experience tells me that many people start to change
existing code only if it breaks. Transition periods simply delay these
updates in most cases. I tend to make the old syntax available via a
compile time option. This makes people aware that they should update
their script (because they have to edit the Makefile when compiling
scotty) and chances are much higher that they get tired of doing
this. Will this approach work for you?
Juergen

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder schoenw@cs.utwente.nl http://www.cs.utwente.nl/~schoenw
Computer Science Department, University of Twente,   (Fax: +31-53-489-3247)
P.O. Box 217, NL-7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands.  (Tel. +31-53-489-3678)
--
!! This message is brought to you via the `tkined & scotty' mailing list.
!! Please do not reply to this message to unsubscribe. To subscribe or
!! unsubscribe, send a mail message to <tkined-request@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>.
!! See http://wwwsnmp.cs.utwente.nl/~schoenw/scotty/ for more information.