BIND 10 #2208: Revise InMemoryClient and ConfigurableClientList::configure() using ZoneTableSegment

[BIND 10 Development]

#2208: Revise InMemoryClient and ConfigurableClientList::configure() using
ZoneTableSegment
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
                   Reporter:         |                 Owner:  jelte
  jinmei                             |                Status:  reviewing
                       Type:  task   |             Milestone:
                   Priority:         |  Sprint-20121023
  medium                             |            Resolution:
                  Component:  data   |             Sensitive:  0
  source                             |           Sub-Project:  DNS
                   Keywords:         |  Estimated Difficulty:  5
            Defect Severity:  N/A    |           Total Hours:  0
Feature Depending on Ticket:         |
  background zone loading            |
        Add Hours to Ticket:  0      |
                  Internal?:  0      |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by muks):

 * owner:  muks => jelte


Comment:

 Replying to [comment:10 jelte]:
 > Replying to [comment:9 muks]:
 > >
 > > > Isn't that hardcoded RRClass::IN() going to present a problem (given
 that the 'static' datasource also uses in-memory)?
 > >
 > > I am assuming you mean the hardcoding inside `ZoneTableSegment`'s
 factory method. We have to decide upon config syntax for it. The factory
 would construct the appropriate `ZoneTableSegment` based on the passed
 memory model, RRClass, etc. in config.
 > >
 > > Also, currently the static datasrc doesn't use the new in-memory code.
 But we have to address this issue when we decide upon config.
 > >
 >
 > Right, but I'm hesitant to add more to do before we can switch that one
 :)
 >
 > But isn't the class already in the configuration? (though from the looks
 of it at a 'higher' level than what is currently passed to the factory). I
 don't think we're gonna put class in there twice, and I don't think there
 are any plans to move it away.
 >
 > The clientlist already knows it afaict, so perhaps it should just be
 passed to the factory function there.

 Done now. :)

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/2208#comment:11>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development