BIND 10 #1775: update in-memory getAdditional() to handle wildcard match for additional names

[BIND 10 Development]

#1775: update in-memory getAdditional() to handle wildcard match for additional
names
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
                   Reporter:         |                 Owner:  jinmei
  jinmei                             |                Status:  reviewing
                       Type:  task   |             Milestone:
                   Priority:  high   |  Sprint-20120403
                  Component:         |            Resolution:
  Unclassified                       |             Sensitive:  0
                   Keywords:         |           Sub-Project:  DNS
            Defect Severity:  N/A    |  Estimated Difficulty:  5
Feature Depending on Ticket:  auth   |           Total Hours:  0
  performance                        |
        Add Hours to Ticket:  0      |
                  Internal?:  0      |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by vorner):

 * owner:  vorner => jinmei


Comment:

 Hello

 Replying to [comment:11 jinmei]:
 > Ah, okay, then I misunderstood you, but in any event that doesn't
 > happen.  As you probably now understand, the auxiliary tree is fixed
 > at the time of initial loading (maintaining it with dynamic update is
 > an issue, but by that time we'll have to fundamentally revisit the
 > structure anyway).

 By the time, I hope to have the new in-memory data structure. We should
 soon stop improving this one and start working on the design of the one
 that can handle the shared memory and dynamic updates.

 > I've updated the branch for addressing a couple of more corner cases
 > (and that's all I intended to make).  Unfortunately, it made the
 > implementation a bit more complicated than I originally expected, but
 > I believe the changes are not too big to read.
 >
 > The commit logs and additional tests should clarify the motivation of
 > the changes.

 To say the truth, the logic in that file is getting very complicated. Few
 more changes and it will be virtually impossible to review or fix.

 Anyway, that's not really because the new changes, it's just there's too
 much functionality. I believe the new changes are OK (but I'm surprised
 the tree does not preserve pointers when updated ‒ after all, it is a tree
 and it has little reason to change positions of nodes in memory).

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/1775#comment:13>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development