BIND 10 #2209: define and implement ConfigurableClientList::getCacheZoneUpdater()

[BIND 10 Development]

#2209: define and implement ConfigurableClientList::getCacheZoneUpdater()
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
                   Reporter:         |                 Owner:  jinmei
  jinmei                             |                Status:  reviewing
                       Type:  task   |             Milestone:
                   Priority:         |  Sprint-20121106
  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 vorner):

 * owner:  vorner => jinmei


Comment:

 Hello

 Replying to [comment:11 jinmei]:
 > > I think it should be cleaned up, but the auth server still uses it
 now. I think
 > > we'll remove it after we start using the background loading, since
 that one
 > > will naturally switch to not use the reload() method.
 >
 > Then could you open a ticket for the cleanup?

 I'm about to do that.

 > > > '''memory_client.cc'''
 > > >
 > > > - `InMemoryClient` constructor: it seems to be not exception safe
 > > >   about zone_table_segment_.  This may become a non issue if you
 > > >   migrate to the "formal" version of `ZoneTableSegment::create`, but
 > > >   we should check that again.
 > > >
 > > > '''memory_client.h'''
 > > >
 > > > - `getZoneTableSegment()`: I guess we should eventually let
 > > >   `ClientList` (or at least something outside of `InMemoryClient`)
 > > >   directly manage `ZoneTableSegment`, at which point
 `InMemoryClient`
 > > >   will probably take it as a parameter to the constructor.  But for
 > > >   now I can live with this workaround.
 > >
 > > I guess both of these would be fixed once #2208 is merged into this,
 since this
 > > code won't be present. Which should be pretty soon. If this code
 doesn't
 > > disappear by then, I'll look into them.
 >
 > I'm not sure about the latter, but as I said I can live with it as an
 > intermediate workaround.  For the former, I think we need to run one
 > more review cycle after the cleanup.  BTW, #2208 now seems to be ready
 > for merge.

 I tried merging it. The changes are pushed now. The merge was little bit
 interesting. The merge commit contains nothing substantial, just the
 conflict
 resolution and some slight cleanups (constification) I noticed on the way.
 The
 adjustments to tests and the code are in follow-up commits.

 I got rid of the getZoneTableSegment too.

 > > Hmm. It seems that the size of change would not be really small and
 we'll
 > > probably remove the reload() soonish. Then it would be better to just
 remove
 > > the TYPED_TEST ones and unify the test fixture classes. I'd like to
 keep it
 > > this way for the short time, since the time spent on compiling the
 templates
 > > will definitely be smaller than the time I'd spend changing it.
 >
 > If the plan is to deprecate reload(), I'm okay with keeping the
 > current style until then.

 I think it would be the plan.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/2209#comment:13>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development