RE: Methods, Inheritance, Exceptions, etc. (was: Re: Methods in SMIng ?)

["Andrea Westerinen" <andreaw@cisco.com>]

Given Frank's last mail, are we discussing procedures or methods?  Perhaps
your negative response changes if we use the same terms to mean the same
things.

Also, we were supposed to be working on requirements at this stage and then
solutions.  It has always been considered poor software engineering to
define a solution and after the fact, document its requirements to justify
that solution.

Andrea

-----Original Message-----
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 1:16 AM
To: andreaw@cisco.com
Cc: strauss@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de; david.putzolu@intel.com; sming@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: Methods, Inheritance, Exceptions, etc. (was: Re: Methods in
SMIng ?)



>>>>> Andrea Westerinen writes:

Andrea> BTW, I am not arguing to introduce new constructs.  I am
Andrea> arguing to use the existing constructs of readable/writable
Andrea> attributes to map the semantics of methods.  We do have
Andrea> methods today in MIBs - for example, we request a ping and a
Andrea> traceroute in remote ops.

Please show me a concrete mapping for generic methods to the existing
set of SNMP protocol operations. And please also give me an estimate
what it actually takes to implement all the artificial objects such a
mapping will introduce with the current SNMP protocol semantics.

Once such a concrete proposal is on the table, we can decide whether
this is indeed a step forward. Without such a concrete counter
proposal, I continue to believe that mapping generic methods on the
current SNMP protocol operations is really really ugly and not worth
pursuing.

/js

--
Juergen Schoenwaelder      Technical University Braunschweig
<schoenw@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>  Dept. Operating Systems & Computer Networks
Phone: +49 531 391 3289    Bueltenweg 74/75, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany
Fax:   +49 531 391 5936    <URL:http://www.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de/~schoenw/>