BIND 10 #2020: b10-ddns should get a list of secondary zones from zonemgr

[BIND 10 Development]

#2020: b10-ddns should get a list of secondary zones from zonemgr
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
                   Reporter:         |                 Owner:  jinmei
  jinmei                             |                Status:  reviewing
                       Type:  task   |             Milestone:
                   Priority:         |  Sprint-20120619
  medium                             |            Resolution:
                  Component:  DDNS   |             Sensitive:  0
                   Keywords:         |           Sub-Project:  DNS
            Defect Severity:  N/A    |  Estimated Difficulty:  0
Feature Depending on Ticket:  DDNS   |           Total Hours:  0
        Add Hours to Ticket:  0      |
                  Internal?:  0      |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by jelte):

 * owner:  jelte => jinmei


Comment:

 First off, I fixed a few trivial typos, and with that I think this can be
 merged. Below is just a bit of followup of discussion.

 Replying to [comment:7 jinmei]:
 >
 > I don't understand the automatic unregistering thing though - unless
 > someone depends on ddns I don't think it matters even if ddns dies on
 > failing to get remote config and unregisters itself.  And, if someone
 > else starts depending on ddns and ddns depends on it, I think it's
 > time to consider more sophisticated solution anyway because what's
 > needed from ddns may not just be configuration - it may be interaction
 > via command channels, which can only start after all initial setups
 > are done.
 >

 Yes, this was presuming there may be a cyclic dependency between different
 modules. Which may be a design problem in itself (even if we should handle
 it cleanly).

 >
 > > - line 318: '# class is optional per spec.' I guess that should say
 'not optional' which would make the rest of the comment make more sense
 too :)
 >
 > Ah, that "optional" thing always confuses me (actually, the concept of
 > "optional" may not be that confusing, but the combination of optional
 > and "default" is probably the source of confusion).  I hope we'll give
 > them better names in the config-ng.
 >

 I should probably have made the combination of optional and default
 illegal (because yes, this is confusing) :p

 > Also, for both this one and add_remote failure, I ended up exploring
 > the maze of configuration stuff further, and found other some weird
 > things that I misunderstood.  They didn't affect too much to ddns
 > itself, but I clarified these points in comments and created a couple
 > of related new tickets (#2038 and #2039).

 those look ok

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/2020#comment:9>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development