[bind10-dev] secondary manager design

[JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉]

At Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:57:53 +0800,
"zhanglikun" <zlkzhy at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> The purpose for requesting a response from the secondary manager is: make
> sure the server doesn't miss any notify message when secondary manager isn't
> working. That means if auth server can't get the response from secondary
> manager, auth server will not answer the notify, it will trigger the master
> send the notify message again.

But if the secondary manager isn't working having the master resend
the notify doesn't help.  Of course, it may help if it's a temporary
failure and the manager starts working by the time of next notify.
The question is whether this benefit is worth the code complexity.  I
don't necessarily object, but at this moment I'm not so sure.

> Yeah, the solution provided you will fix the missing-notify problem if auth
> server hold one notify-from list. The notify-from element will removed from
> the list when auth server get the feedback from seondary manager.

Actually, what I said (in the alternative approach) is that the auth
server simply forgets the notify once it sends the parameters towards
the manager, whether it's successfully received and handled or not.
Personally I'd like to keep the auth server as stateless as possible.

But in any event I don't have a strong opinion about this at this
moment.  The points I raised are just food for thought.

---
JINMEI, Tatuya
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.