RE: Importing items used in MODULE-COMPLIANCE and AGENT-CAPABILITIES

["Presuhn, Randy" <Randy_Presuhn@bmc.com>]

Hi -

> From: David T. Perkins [mailto:dperkins@dsperkins.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 16:48
> To: Mreview (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Importing items used in MODULE-COMPLIANCE and
> AGENT-CAPABILITIES
...
> Take a step back. The reason for the recommendation from Mike was to
> accommodate MIB compilers. I was trying to point out that one 
> accommodation
> could result in other problems.

I don't see how the recommendation results in other problems.
If a compiler doesn't handle the references (whether imported
or not) correctly, it's broken.  A redundant IMPORT would never
confuse a compiler that knew how to handle references.  (One that
didn't would be pretty useless.)

> If a MIB compiler is written correctly and completely (which to me
> seems sort of strange, since SMIv2 does not subset), then we have
> no issue.
...

I disagree.  I believe the value in the RECOMMENDation is for
humans, not compilers, despite the stated rationale, which
I've already characterized as a red herring.  Just try explaining
to a human why no IMPORT is needed for items in a MODULE-COMPLIANCE
or AGENT-CAPABILITIES construct, but is needed in the case of
things like "modulename.typereference"  Taking our quirky
notation as a given, the least we can do is help people write
more-or-less human-readable specifications using it.

(I'd also argue that any compiler that depends on or tries
to enforce the recommendation has a bug.)

 ------------------------------------------------------
 Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  1-3141
 randy_presuhn@bmc.com  2141 North First Street
 Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San José, California 95131  USA
 ------------------------------------------------------
 My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
 ------------------------------------------------------