BIND 10 #1595: Make the share name configurable
BIND 10 Development
do-not-reply at isc.org
Thu Feb 2 18:20:57 UTC 2012
#1595: Make the share name configurable
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: | Owner: jinmei
vorner | Status: reviewing
Type: task | Milestone:
Priority: major | Sprint-20120207
Component: | Resolution:
Unclassified | Sensitive: 0
Keywords: | Sub-Project: DNS
Defect Severity: N/A | Estimated Difficulty: 3
Feature Depending on Ticket: | Total Hours: 0
Socket creator, multiple auths |
Add Hours to Ticket: 0 |
Internal?: 0 |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by jinmei):
'''general'''
In general, I'd like to avoid hardcode specific values like "auth" or
"resolver" in .cc's.
'''socket_request.cc'''
- 'explicit' is now unnecessary for the SocketRequestorCCSession
constructor.
- is it okay to pass an empty string for app_name to
initSocketRequestor() (then to SocketRequestorCCSession)?
- is it okay to pass non empty share_name to requestSocket() when
share_mode is not SHARE_SAME? Also, while it may be inferable, it's
not clear from the documentation how exactly share_name works with
SHARE_SAME.
'''socket_requestor_test.cc'''
- not new to this case, but I don't see why we need to use ASSERT_xxx
instead of EXPECT_xxx in the added tests.
'''testutils/socket_request.h (and auth_srv_unittest)'''
- related to whether it's okay to pass an empty app_name to
initSocketRequestor(), test using "" seems to be less reliable.
Since "" could be used as a default as well, I cannot be so sure if
name is the default or the string auth_srv_unittest passed (both are
"") here:
{{{#!c++
EXPECT_EQ(expected_app_, name);
}}}
--
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/1595#comment:6>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development
More information about the bind10-tickets
mailing list