[bind10-dev] AbstractRRsets and RRSIGs

[Michal 'vorner' Vaner]

Hello

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 08:02:53AM +0000, Stephen Morris wrote:
> AbstractRRset - the interface
>    |
> BasicRRset - a concrete implementation of a RRset

To tell the truth, I always wondered why we have the BasicRRset at all. I never
saw it used and I don't imagine a reason to use it if there's RRset.

Also, when we're going to touch it, the name AbstractRRset looks strange. I'd do
the naming the other way around, if I did it, like RRset being the base class
and then having bunch of other RRset-derived classes. The code that wouldn't
care about them would just use RRset, no matter which one it would be. Also,
developer would just go and grab RRset and wouldn't care about AbstractRRset and
stuff like that.

> a) It breaks the model of an RRset - an RRset can exist without an
> associated RRSIG RRset, so should the interface defining what an RRset
> is have methods referencing an associated set of RRSIGs?

I'm not sure we need to support RRsets that aren't able to hold signatures (that
doesn't mean they need to have them assigned, we still can have RRset capable of
holding one but not actually having one). If we really do, the Jinmei's idea of
SignedRRset base class looks sane to me.

> c) There is no longer a distinction between BasicRRset and RRset.

OT: What happened to b)? ;-)

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/20120126/c47dbfe1/attachment.bin>