[bind10-dev] meta data source vs data source container (summary)

[JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉]

At Mon, 07 May 2012 17:15:02 -0700,
JINMEI Tatuya <jinmei at isc.org> wrote:

> In the f2f meeting we discussed two options for implementing the
> concept of "set of data source(client)s": A "meta data source
> (client)", which will be a derived class of DataSourceClient, and a
> separate "container" class that holds the set of data source(client)s.

> This is a higher level summary of major pros and cons of these
> approaches, which I promised to send to the dev list at the meeting
> (I'm trying to be objective, but I'll be quite likely biased because I
> have a clear preference):

...and this is the (most) subjective part.

I prefer the "container" approach.  Data source configuration is one
of the areas that are still quite in a state of flux, so I'd rather
reserve greater flexibility for future extensions to the base class.
In the same context, I'd less worry about the initial implementation
cost.  We'll still need to remove all hardcoding of sqlite3, add
global/generic configuration framework for data sources, using
polymorphic factory throughout the code base, etc, anyway.  If we need
to have focused development period on this larger topic, I believe
it's less costly to do some extra work for this subset of the topic.

---
JINMEI, Tatuya