Re: [Mibble-users] Suggestion, new class SnmpType

[Per Cederberg]

Hi Thomas,

Thanks for your suggestion! I'm sorry that I haven't yet
done much about your previous bug report, but at least
I've resolved the problem theoretically... ;-) The last
couple of months have been kind of hectic over here and
I've had to focus on Liquid Site (www.liquidsite.net)
full-time.

Anyway, it is an interesting proposition to introduce a
new (abstract) SnmpType class. However, I think I've had
a look at this before and ended up concluding that the
various SnmpXType classes don't have that much in common
actually... except for the getDescription() method. So
what do you think would be the benefit? I mean, which
methods should be present in the SnmpType class? Or do
you mean to do something like AdventNet have in their
API, i.e. a single big class with all accessor methods
bundled together? (Or if somebody else have an opinion,
now would be a good time to state it!)

Please outline the advantages of your suggestion a bit
more so that I can fully understand it. If you'd like to
provide some example code snipplets showing the greatness
of your idea, I'd be more than happy! Feel free to
contact me off-list (in Swedish) if you like.

Cheers,

/Per

On sun, 2004-10-10 at 01:49, Thomas Åhlén wrote:
> Add a new abstraction to make it easier to cast and use methods in SnmpType
> classes
> 
> MibType
>    |
> SnmpType
>    |
> (All Snmp types)
> 
> 
> MibType type;
> .
> .
> .
> .
> if( type instanceof SnmpType )
> {
>     ((SnmpType)type).getDescription();
> }
> 
> Currently one has to check each Snmp subtype and make a specific cast for
> that type.
> 
> Cheers
> Thomas Åhlén
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mibble-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/mibble-users