BIND 10 #504: CNAME Implementation

[BIND 10 Development]

#504: CNAME Implementation
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
                 Reporter:  stephen  |                Owner:  jinmei
                     Type:           |               Status:  reviewing
  enhancement                        |            Milestone:  A-Team-
                 Priority:  major    |  Sprint-20110126
                Component:  data     |           Resolution:
  source                             |            Sensitive:  0
                 Keywords:           |  Add Hours to Ticket:  0
Estimated Number of Hours:  5.0      |          Total Hours:  0
                Billable?:  1        |
                Internal?:  0        |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Comment (by jinmei):

 Replying to [comment:11 vorner]:
 > Replying to [comment:8 jinmei]:
 > > Replying to [comment:7 vorner]:
 > > >  * Is the MemoryZone the right place to check for singleton RRs? If
 we really want to check that, then I guess RRset itself should throw in
 that case, this is not specific to memory zones.
 > >
 > > One difficulty is that we may not always be able to detect violation
 of singleton in the form of a single RRset.  In general, a zone can be
 given two RRs of the same name and of a single type from different RRsets,
 so we need to do something within zones anyway.
 >
 > Well, at some point they would be put together and at that point they
 would throw an exception.
 >
 I'm not so sure about that.  We may not maintain the RRsets in the form of
 dns::RRsets object internally.  For example, we may want to more
 space-efficient representation like #404 and merge RRsets using the
 special representation.  (Of course we could still rely on the RRset class
 by
 converting internal data to an RRset object and then performing merge on
 it.
 That would be a design question about the tradeoff between speed and
 logic consolidation).

 > > Whether or not we should do this check at the level of
 RRset::addRdata() is a different question, and it's probably a good idea.
 I think it's a matter of separate ticket/task, though.
 >
 > Did you create the ticket or should I?

 I've created it.  #525.

 > Thanks. It seems OK now, so merge, please.

 Okay, thanks for the review.  Branch merged.  For task management purposes
 I'll do:
  - close this ticket
  - reduce the "estimation" from 5 to 3 due to the subtasking (3 is my
 personal opinion, still not really sure about how we should do in such a
 case)
  - open a new one for the other half of this task, and give it an
 estimation of 3 (again, it's my personal opinion and not sure if this is a
 valid way)

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/504#comment:13>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development