BIND 10 #537: Make asiolink::UDPServer smaller to copy

[BIND 10 Development]

#537: Make asiolink::UDPServer smaller to copy
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
                 Reporter:  vorner   |                Owner:  jinmei
                     Type:  task     |               Status:  reviewing
                 Priority:  major    |            Milestone:  A-Team-
                Component:           |  Sprint-20110209
  Unclassified                       |           Resolution:
                 Keywords:           |            Sensitive:  0
Estimated Number of Hours:  6.0      |  Add Hours to Ticket:  0
                Billable?:  1        |          Total Hours:  0
                Internal?:  0        |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by vorner):

 * owner:  vorner => jinmei


Comment:

 Hello

 Replying to [comment:5 jinmei]:
 > I'm not sure if we want to have this level of tuning at this point,
 > but since the changes are basically straightforward and not so big,
 > I don't oppose to that.

 There's no time to do the proper tuning with redesigning and refactoring.

 > For a longer term I hope we'll completely eliminate all the overhead
 > of coroutine and per query resource allocation for b10-auth while
 > sharing as much code as possible with the resolver, but that's
 > certainly a separate topic, and not for now in any event.

 Fully agreed.

 > Some other things I happened to notice:
 >
 >  - (although this is in the original code) s/enternal/internal/?
 > {{{
 > +    // The ASIO-enternal endpoint object representing the client
 > }}}

 Hmm, I read it wrong the first time I saw it as „ethernal“ and wondered
 what it might mean. Fixed.

 >  - indentation style in multi-line statements was changed, e.g.
 > {{{
 > -        (*answer_callback_)(*io_message_, query_message_,
 > -                            answer_message_, respbuf_);
 > +        (*data_->answer_callback_)(*data_->io_message_,
 data_->query_message_,
 > +                            data_->answer_message_, data_->respbuf_);
 > }}}
 >   The original style is the (vaguely documented) convention in BIND 9
 >   (see the "Indentation" section of
 >   http://bind10.isc.org/wiki/BIND9CodingGuidelines).  As a fan of
 >   consistency I'd like to keep a consistent style (either way) if
 >   possible.  But this is quite a minor point.

 I didn't find it there anyway. But you're right this looked odd, I didn't
 update the indentation. I prefer indenting by 4 spaces as in any other
 nested statement, is that OK (as I changed it)? Stuff like this looks
 strange to me:

 {{{
          really_long->function->call(one_param,
                                      second,
                                      third ? or :
                                      another);
 }}}

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/537#comment:7>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development