BIND 10 #2281: use new in-memory data source in the static data source
BIND 10 Development
do-not-reply at isc.org
Mon Feb 11 08:14:31 UTC 2013
#2281: use new in-memory data source in the static data source
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: jinmei | Owner: muks
Type: task | Status:
Priority: high | reviewing
Component: data source | Milestone:
Keywords: | Sprint-20130219
Sensitive: 0 | Resolution:
Sub-Project: DNS | CVSS Scoring:
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
It seems there's some problem with the makefiles, since distcheck
complains:
{{{
libtool: compile: g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../../../src/lib/datasrc
-I../../.. -I../../../../src/lib -I../../../src/lib
-I../../../../src/lib/dns -I../../../src/lib/dns -DOS_LINUX
-I../../../../ext/asio -I../../../../ext/coroutine
-DASIO_DISABLE_THREADS=1 -Wall -Wextra -Wwrite-strings -Woverloaded-
virtual -Wno-sign-compare -Werror -fPIC -g -O2 -MT static_datasrc_link.lo
-MD -MP -MF .deps/static_datasrc_link.Tpo -c
../../../../src/lib/datasrc/static_datasrc_link.cc -fPIC -DPIC -o
.libs/static_datasrc_link.o
../../../../src/lib/datasrc/static_datasrc_link.cc:16:26: fatal error:
factory_link.h: No such file or directory
compilation terminated.
make[7]: *** [static_datasrc_link.lo] Error 1
make[7]: Leaving directory
`/tmp/bind10-1/bind10-20130205/_build/src/lib/datasrc'
}}}
Is it OK to pass the config of the static data source to the zone table
segment? I don't think the config parameter has been described, but it
seems strange that such low-level thing would know anything about
configuration of a very specific data source.
If you don't link the in-memory library, how does the code get in? Is it
some magic I didn't notice, or is it by accident already there? Or, who
does link to the in-memory?
I don't understand why the change in the python tests is needed. Can you
explain it, please? Why removing in-memory from there? I would understand
adding the static one too.
Should the mock return the longest partial match if there's no exact one?
It seems to pick the first one it finds, which might as well be something
shorter than optimal.
If you used reverse names for the names in the map (still in the mock), it
would be possible to find the longest match by some trick with
map::lower_bound, I think. Not that it would be important for the
performance.
--
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/2281#comment:13>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development
More information about the bind10-tickets
mailing list