Re: net-snmp support (open bug 18728)

SNMP apps tend to turn into legacy apps rather quickly. You write it once for some particular device and just sort of forget about it. I don't think breaking BC is a good idea here, so yes, if we can't do v3 by adding optional args to the existing functions, then a new set of v3-specific functions should probably be implemented. Or, perhaps a whole new extension with backward compatibility functions. I wrote the original snmp extension and will be the first to admit that it isn't great code and could sorely use a rewrite from someone much more familiar with SNMP than I. -Rasmus On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Harrie Hazewinkel wrote: > > > --On Thursday, September 5, 2002 10:52 AM -0700 Rasmus Lerdorf > <rasmus@php.net> wrote: > > > We have many examples of configure checks that drive #ifdef'ed code to > > take care of minor differences between versions of a library. Are the > > changes really so significant that we can't do this cleanly here? > > The changes are not extreemly significant. I am working on > it to create a diff from the info I got from another. > Also within the NET-SNMP package the attempt is started to do > better namespace protection. This will cause also various functions > have their name changed (currently mainly structure type). > > > However, if SNMPv3 support is added the functions of the PHP language > change significant due to many extra options. Currently SNMPv3 is > full standard and SNMPv1 is historic within the IETF. > This reases the question whether the PHP langauge may be changed?? > Or do we need to add the SNMPv3 functionality with an snmpv3 prefix > instead of the snmp prefix. > > > > > > > -Rasmus > > > > On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Harrie Hazewinkel wrote: > > > >> HI, > >> > >> I was working on getting PHP with SNMP compiled with the > >> latest NET-SNMP 5.0.4 (was UCD-SNMP). It does not work. > >> I was willing to fix this problem, however, I beleive it > >> could cause backwards compatibility problems if the > >> UCD-SNMP must be kept. > >> > >> the options are (as i recognise), > >> 1) drop UCD-SNMP support since the NET-SNMP is just the name change > >> plus many other good features. > >> 2) Make sure both work with IFDEF's. > >> 3) Add an extra SNMP portion that works with NET-SNMP. > >> > >> > >> Personnally I think 1 would be the best choice, but I have also > >> created once an SNMPv3 extension for PHP with SNMP and therefore > >> 3 could be choosen and have then the new SNMPv3 features. > >> > >> > >> What do others think?? > >> > >> > >> Harrie > >> > >> Internet Management Consulting > >> mailto: harrie@lisanza.net > >> http://www.lisanza.net/ > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> Author of MOD-SNMP, enabling SNMP management the Apache HTTP server > >> > >> -- > >> PHP Development Mailing List > >> <http://www.php.net/> > >> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >> > > > > > > > > Harrie > > Internet Management Consulting > mailto: harrie@lisanza.net > http://www.lisanza.net/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Author of MOD-SNMP, enabling SNMP management the Apache HTTP server >