BIND 10 #2907: add ConfigurableClientList::getZoneTableAccessor method

[BIND 10 Development]

#2907: add ConfigurableClientList::getZoneTableAccessor method
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
            Reporter:  jinmei        |                        Owner:
                Type:  task          |  pselkirk
            Priority:  medium        |                       Status:
           Component:  data source   |  reviewing
            Keywords:                |                    Milestone:
           Sensitive:  0             |  Sprint-20130611
         Sub-Project:  DNS           |                   Resolution:
Estimated Difficulty:  3             |                 CVSS Scoring:
         Total Hours:  1.97          |              Defect Severity:  N/A
                                     |  Feature Depending on Ticket:
                                     |  shared memory data source
                                     |          Add Hours to Ticket:  0
                                     |                    Internal?:  0
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by vorner):

 * owner:  vorner => pselkirk
 * totalhours:  0 => 1.97


Comment:

 Hello

 Replying to [comment:15 pselkirk]:
 > > > > Also, as shared_ptr is not a primitive type, it may be better to
 pass it as `const shared_ptr<...> &` (reference), so the counter is not
 incremented and decremented needlessly.
 >
 > Okay, I changed it in the unit test, where we're actually passing it to
 the validation function.

 I made one small change to that (please pull) ‒ while it compiled in this
 instance, there's quite substantial change between `X &` and `const X &`.

 The second is „safe“ for the caller, as it won't modify anything and a
 result of expression can be passed, not in the first case, where a real
 variable (well, l-value) is needed and it may change.

 I think it may be merged now.

 > > So, is the zone table accessor needed only when configuring it, or is
 it needed during general server handling?
 >
 > This is the crucial question, isn't it? I can only guess at intent.

 Well, it's this is the question that determines if there should be the
 virtual method in the base class. It seems I'm not the only one missing
 the big picture of the changes :-|. But I don't know what to do about
 that.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/2907#comment:16>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development