division of code into libraries - openssl dependancy

Brian Wellington Brian.Wellington at nominum.com
Tue Dec 10 06:42:55 UTC 2002

On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 Mark_Andrews at isc.org wrote:

> 	libdst would be more appropriate.  You could then have a crypto
> 	aware libdst and crypto unaware libdst instead of a crypto aware
> 	libdns and a crypto unaware libdns.  However you would still need
> 	to link against libcrypto even if the upper layers don't make use
> 	of crypto when linking against the crypto aware libdst.

A lot of the code in what would become libdst depends on other code in 
libdns, leading to a circular dependency.

> 	Pulling out all the crypto aware parts and putting them in a
> 	seperate library would be extremely difficult.

As would separating dst from libdns.  This did come up 2 or 3 years ago 
when the crypto code was added, and the current method was agreed upon.

I don't fully understand why using liblwres requires that you also 
link in libdns.  Using lwres to get the common record types (A and PTR), 
or even uncommon ones (KEY), return data that can be used directly by an 
application with a basic description of the record format.  Even types 
with DNS names aren't really a problem, since lwres only returns 
uncompressed names.


More information about the bind-workers mailing list