[SNMP4J] getPeerAddress?

[Mathias Bogaert]

Frank,

How about naming it TargetDetails (like UserDetails in Acegi Security 
System for Spring). This way the user can have a Target class in it's 
own domain classes that implements the TargetDetails interface.

Also, I'm thinking of using SNMP4J and Spring 
(www.springframework.org).  For this to work you'll need to make the 
Snmp() constructor public and add a setter for list of 
TransportMappings.

Example:
     <bean id="udpTransportMapping" 
class="org.snmp4j.transport.DefaultUdpTransportMapping">
         <property name="asyncMsgProcessingSupported">
             <value>false</value>
         </property>
     </bean>

     <bean id="snmp" class="org.snmp4j.Snmp" init-method="listen" 
destroy-method="close">
         <property name="transportMappings">
             <list>
                 <ref bean="udpTransportMapping"/>
             </list>
         </property>
     </bean>

Cheers,

Mathias

On 10 Mar 2005, at 20:40, Frank Fock wrote:

> Hi Mathias,
>
> Thanks for your suggestions!
>
> Changing Target from abstract class to an interface is a good idea.
> If no one has a strong opinion against it, then it will be in release 
> 1.2.
> The change should not have any consequences to existing code if
> one has not subclassed Target directly yet.
>
> What would like to have instead of the getPeerAddress() method?
> The address is provided by the transport. The ResponseEvent
> also provides the userObject which can be used to hold the target
> used to send the request.
>
> We would, of course, let other developers work on it - however
> up to now we have not received any serious offers. For the 1.2 release
> there will be a RC version so that mailing list members can comment
> on it. In addition there will be also several alpha releases for  the
> SNMP4J-Agent API. The first one should be released end of March.
>
> In general, I appreciate any suggestions for improvements and I will
> do my best to implement them.
>
> Best regards,
> Frank
>
> Mathias Bogaert wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Why was the choice for getPeerAddress() made? Now one still has to go 
>> and construct a Target (with its own specific properties) in order to 
>> implement a request-response-request-response chain. Also the fact 
>> that org.snmp4j.Target is a concrete class bothers me. Make it an 
>> interface and let the applications implement it (e.g. population from 
>> a database). Let CommunityTarget and SecureTarget extend a 
>> TargetSupport or AbstractTarget class, which implements Target.
>>
>> Will SNMP4J's development process be torn open in order to let other 
>> developers work on it? Will there be beta and RC versions in the 
>> future? I'd like to see a more 'open source' approach to the 
>> development.
>>
>> /rantmode
>>
>> Mathias Bogaert
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> SNMP4J mailing list
>> SNMP4J at agentpp.org
>> http://lists.agentpp.org/mailman/listinfo/snmp4j
>>
>
>
>
>