Re: Configuration management, version 5
Stephen Zander <email@example.com> wrote:
> I was going to comment that this screams SNMP/MIB to me, until
> I noticed that you mentioned this later on. Without leaping to
> implementation ahead of design, wouldn't explicitly using an SNMP
> approach reduce the work involved here (eg no need to re-invent
> databases/access mechanisms).
While we must provide for networked installation we must also provide
for non-networked installation.
Also, I am a bit uncomfortable with SNMP for large chunks of text.
Last time I checked, SNMP was rather complex in the way it dealt with
things that wouldn't fit into a single packet.
Anyways, while it's reasonable to expect that someone can map the
interface onto SNMP, I see no reason to require it.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com