[bind10-dev] MSGQ-NG requirements

[Michal 'vorner' Vaner]

Hello

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:28:50AM -0700, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> > Well, if we couldn't pass our configuration and all this we pass
> > through it now, the msgq would be pretty useless.
> 
> I do not necessarily think so (while I agree that it's convenient if
> we can assume a single interface with the ability of passing any
> amount of complicated data).  In an extreme end of this approach, we
> could even store zone's RRs as part of "configuration" and pass them
> over msgq.  But I don't think anyone say it would be "pretty useless"
> if it couldn't be used for that purpose.  So, it's a matter of the
> balance between the convenience of using a single unified tool and its
> cost.

Well, what I mean is this: What else do we pass through the message queue than
configuration and statistics? So if we couldn't do that, there'd be nothing much
left for MSGQ to do. And I believe the only thing we need to ensure is we do not
block reading the large message, therefore even if it was only a convenience, I
think it would still be worth it (we can write a lettuce test to check such
things).

With regards

-- 
_(){ _&_;};_

Michal 'vorner' Vaner
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind10-dev/attachments/20120413/9f2da367/attachment-0001.bin>