BIND 10 #2964: xfrin should use general datasource configuration, not Auth/database_file

[BIND 10 Development]

#2964: xfrin should use general datasource configuration, not Auth/database_file
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
            Reporter:  jinmei        |                        Owner:
                Type:  defect        |  jinmei
            Priority:  medium        |                       Status:
           Component:  xfrin         |  reviewing
            Keywords:                |                    Milestone:
           Sensitive:  0             |  Sprint-20130611
         Sub-Project:  DNS           |                   Resolution:
Estimated Difficulty:  5             |                 CVSS Scoring:
         Total Hours:  0.83          |              Defect Severity:  N/A
                                     |  Feature Depending on Ticket:
                                     |          Add Hours to Ticket:  0
                                     |                    Internal?:  0
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by vorner):

 * owner:  vorner => jinmei
 * totalhours:  0 => 0.83


Comment:

 Hello

 Replying to [comment:10 jinmei]:
 > I generally agree on these.  In fact, as I added a note the guide, I
 > thought this should be revised in the context of comprehensive zone
 > management/configuration framework.  At that point, all the user have
 > to do configure some zone as a secondary on some data source.  Then
 > the framework will take care of creating an empty zone in the data
 > source, etc.

 OK, I'll bring it up on the list.

 > > All the wrong configs about the `DataSrcClientMgr` seem to be
 violating the specs. Should there be a test with a valid spec (for example
 with non-existent type of data source)?
 >
 > In practice, this case shouldn't be so different from errors like
 > nonexistent type of data source for higher level Python programs:

 If you know the internal implementation, then they are indeed very
 similar. But they _could_ be very different, one could be eliminated much
 sooner if there was some validation according to the spec file.

 I don't insist on it the hard way, but I believe adding such test would be
 a good thing and not much work.

 I believe it can be merged with or without such test.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/2964#comment:13>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development