It appears that Viktor Dukhovni <[email protected]> said: >We're lately seeing novel DNS RRTYPEs that are extensible by >introduction of new RDATA field types. ...
>One ends up with complex models, with abstract classes for the value >slot, and extensible codecs with pluggable cocrete methods for the known >value types, and a generic "opaque" decoder that handles octet string >blobs for the unknown types. Applications can then do type-safe casts >of an abstract value field to a known concrete type. It seems to me that when there's a new RRTYPE, you have to add a new RRTYPE routine to your library to handle the RRTYPE, or if there's a new field type, you have to add a new field option to an existing RRTPE routine. I don't see a lot of difference. I suppose there might be a few situations where you need to pass everything to some upper layer, but if the upper layer is going to have new code to handle new fields, fix the library too. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
