BIND 10 #216: Xfrin: Implement the feature items in TODO file.

[BIND 10 Development]

#216: Xfrin: Implement the feature items in TODO file.
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
      Reporter:  zhanglikun   |        Owner:  shentingting        
          Type:  enhancement  |       Status:  reviewing           
      Priority:  major        |    Milestone:  y2 6 month milestone
     Component:  xfrin        |   Resolution:                      
      Keywords:               |    Sensitive:  0                   
Estimatedhours:  0.0          |        Hours:  0                   
      Billable:  1            |   Totalhours:  5.0                 
      Internal:  0            |  
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Changes (by jinmei):

  * owner:  jinmei => shentingting


Comment:

 Replying to [comment:27 shentingting]:
 > Because the latest change is small, so I attach a diff file to this
 ticket. the xfrin.2.diff is correct.

 xfrin.2.diff looks mostly okay except the following two points:

  - I'm not sure why we need this in !XfrinConnection.connect():
 {{{
             if why.args[0] not in (0, EISCONN):
                 raise
 }}}
   Should "0" be really considered in this context explicitly?  It seems to
 be a leftover from the previous version using _ex (where 0 should mean
 "success").  I'm also not sure why we can ignore EISCONN.  Is there any
 valid scenario we catch EISCONN but it's not an error?
  - you removed the description for _threads_zones and _conn_sockets with
 renaming the attributes.  it's not good.  we should revise the description
 according to the name change.

 Also, it's not clear to me whether all of my previous comments were
 addressed.  For example, there doesn't seem to be any change for this
 point:
  - "Xfrin.init: the initialization of _max_transfers_in doesn't make
 sense..."
  - "configuration update for "transfers_in" should be tested."
 (there are probably more)

 Please clarify which of my points were addressed and which were not, and
 in the latter case, why not.  I do not necessarily rqeuire all of the
 comments be addressed, but without the explanation I cannot be sure
 whether they were just forgotten or rejected due to some reasoable reason.

 Giving the ticket back to tingting.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/216#comment:28>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development