Re: [Mibble-users] Mibble 2.8 and ATM-SWITCHING-NODE-MIB

[Per Cederberg]

Sorry for the slow answer on this one. But I think you'd have to
consult the ASN.1 specification to find out what is correct or
incorrect here. My belief is that Mibble handles this correctly, since
both OBJECT-TYPE and TRAP-TYPE are just ASN.1 macros. I don't think a
compliant ASN.1 parser could assume that values declared with
different types or macros have different namespaces. Rather, the same
namespace seems to be shared between both types and values. The fact
that none of the IETF MIBs break this rule might also be an indicator.

That said, perhaps Mibble could be more forgiving for this particular
error. Perhaps just issuing a warning? Or attempt to recover from the
error by renaming the later symbol? Or attempting a symbol merge (in
case they would just be duplicates)?

Cheers,

/Per

On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Robert Schilling <address@hidden> wrote:
> I'm getting an error while loading this mabe stating that both 'lock'
> and 'hello' are already defined symbols. What I've discovered is that
> the MIB defines an OBJECT-TYPE and TRAP-TYPE for both of these. I'm
> assuming that is legal to do in a MIB, but Mibble isn't handling it.
>
> My question here is, what's the correct answer? Should a TRAP-TYPE
> macro symbol conflict with an OBJECT-TYPE symbol of the same name?
> Right now it looks like Mibble doesn't allow any symbols of the same
> name at all. I have no problem making a code change, but I don't
> really know what the _correct_ answer is. Any help on this one?
> Thanks!
>
> BTW, the MIB is easily searchable on Google if you need the specifics.
> I can send if need be, but I don't have it on this machine.
>
> --
> -- Robert Schilling
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mibble-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/mibble-users
>