BIND 10 #461: Empty node processing in MemoryZone Easy Part

[BIND 10 Development]

#461: Empty node processing in MemoryZone Easy Part
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
                 Reporter:  hanfeng  |                Owner:  hanfeng
                     Type:           |               Status:  reviewing
  enhancement                        |            Milestone:  A-Team-
                 Priority:           |  Sprint-20110126
  critical                           |           Resolution:
                Component:  data     |            Sensitive:  0
  source                             |  Add Hours to Ticket:  0
                 Keywords:           |          Total Hours:  0
Estimated Number of Hours:  0.0      |
                Billable?:  1        |
                Internal?:  0        |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by hanfeng):

 Replying to [comment:7 vorner]:
 > I'm not sure if you wanted review, you didn't assign it back to me, but
 even if you want to continue your work, you can take this as part of it.
 I forget to change the assignment, it's my fault.

 > What's wrong with bool template parameter? It is completely valid, and
 is closer to what you actually pass inside. I know your way is more
 extensible, but do we expect we will need the extensibility? There are
 some 3 layers of hiding that the parameter is actually a boolean, which
 makes the code harder to read.

 For template syntax, we can pass integer as template parameter, but it's
 not usual way.
 For each feature, we can do quick hack, but if later, we need add more
 policy into the rbtree, all the place using rbtree has to change, but use
 template class, the modification is less. And the function name is clearly
 specify the purpose which I don't think decrease the readability.

 > And, if you want to preserve the current way, could you, at last,
 declare the classes above the RBTree and RBNode completely, instead of
 forward-declaring them? There's no need to forward declare them, since
 they don't use the RBTree and RBNode and they are in the same header file.
 >
 > Also, the documentation comments are wrong. They belong only to the
 first class, so you would either need to comment both, or put them into a
 group. And, as you put the comment both to the forward declaration and
 full declaration, you provided two documentation comments for the first
 class (and none for the second).
 Yes, the forward declaring is useless, I have remove it and move the
 policy class declare above rbtree class declare.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/461#comment:8>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development