[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Closing on NIM requirements
I agree SNMP can indirectly and inefficiently simulate methods in that you
can set a bunch of OIDs (call them arguments), set the runMethod OID (call
the method), and then poll/get the result OID (or trigger a report). But
LDAP as an RPC model??? Not a chance.
Nonetheless, operations still require the attributes/classes (data) to be
defined as well. So my question then becomes, shouldn't there be two models,
one declarative model for the attributes and then another model for the use
of those attributes within operations?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:Harald@Alvestrand.no]
> Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2000 1:05 AM
> To: Durham, David; 'Weiss, Walter'; 'firstname.lastname@example.org'
> Subject: RE: Closing on NIM requirements
> At 15:49 15.04.2000 -0700, Durham, David wrote:
> >Methods seem to
> >break repository models (which do not support them directly)
> as well as
> >protocol models that strictly set/get or add/remove named
> data (eg. SNMP).
> I'd claim the opposite argument: That the many
> set-data-and-cause-magic-to-happen variables in SNMP MIBs
> proves that as a
> modelling language, it suffers greatly from its decision to disallow
> methods and stick only to data.
> Set-data-and-poll-result-variable-until-its-value-changes is
> an RPC model,
> just not an efficient one.
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway