BIND 10 #1595: Make the share name configurable

[BIND 10 Development]

#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      |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by vorner):

 * owner:  vorner => jinmei


Comment:

 Hello

 Replying to [comment:6 jinmei]:
 > '''general'''
 >
 > In general, I'd like to avoid hardcode specific values like "auth" or
 > "resolver" in .cc's.

 Hmm, what would be the better place to put them? I don't think it makes
 sense to put them into the configuration, because we don't support
 different configurations for different auth servers, etc, so I wouldn't
 like to clutter the configuration for user, as it would have no effect for
 him. And the initLogger hardcodes the name as well.

 Maybe there could be a single name in a constant at the top and use it in
 initLogger and initRequestor?

 > - 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.

 I tried to describe it little bit more in the description.

 > '''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.

 I'm not sure, but it looks like if there would be 0 messages in the
 session, the next one would segfault. I guess Jelte put ASSERT_ everywhere
 for consistency and I just copy-pasted it. Should I try to change some of
 the ones where it doesn't seem necessary?

 > - 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);
 > }}}

 Actually, the test socket requestor has no app_name fallback, the
 expected_app_ is the string passed from auth_srv_unittest and the name is
 the parameter being checked. I tried to describe it in the comments, I
 hope it is readable there.

 Thank you

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/1595#comment:8>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development