BIND 10 #2052: dns::LabelSequence::compare()

[BIND 10 Development]

#2052: dns::LabelSequence::compare()
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
                   Reporter:         |                 Owner:  muks
  jinmei                             |                Status:  reviewing
                       Type:  task   |             Milestone:
                   Priority:         |  Sprint-20120703
  medium                             |            Resolution:
                  Component:         |             Sensitive:  0
  libdns++                           |           Sub-Project:  DNS
                   Keywords:         |  Estimated Difficulty:  4
            Defect Severity:  N/A    |           Total Hours:  0
Feature Depending on Ticket:         |
        Add Hours to Ticket:  0      |
                  Internal?:  0      |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by vorner):

 * owner:  vorner => muks


Comment:

 Hello

 Replying to [comment:7 muks]:
 > Hi vorner
 >
 > Replying to [comment:5 vorner]:
 > > First, I'd like to ask ‒ there's no relation between absolute and non-
 absolute name. But what about two non-absolute ones? Comparing "www" to
 "www" will return NONE. Is it what we want?

 The changes look OK.

 > > And, finally, I wanted to point out that we planned to extend the
 LabelSequence so it would be possible to be built on top of raw data
 instead of the Name object. I think we'll be using these in the new in-
 memory implementation. But then, this will not work. Would it be possible
 to modify the Name and the LabelSequence so that the `partial_match` code
 works both for the Name and for the internal data structures of
 LabelSequence, so the LabelSequence::compare would not use the Name object
 there?
 >
 > There is no current internal data structure of LabelSequence specific to
 it (it uses Name). This is why Name's `compare()` was modified to
 `partial_compare()` and reused. I think suggested changes are best done
 after LabelSequence is itself modified as part of the larger changes. The
 changes required at that point would be straightforward.

 Well, the rest of `LabelSequence` uses the data by accessing the two
 arrays, they don't call methods of `Name` directly. So I wanted to point
 out it would be better done this way too. But you're right this can wait
 for the changes to the `LabelSequence`

 Anyway, I noticed one more thing. The tests don't seem to test any case
 with `SUBDOMAIN` or `SUPERDOMAIN`. Neither I noticed a test checking the
 order from `getOrder()` method. Could these be added?

 Thank you.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://bind10.isc.org/ticket/2052#comment:8>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development