Subject: Re: [PATCH] ares_parse_txt_reply: add `record_start` field

Re: [PATCH] ares_parse_txt_reply: add `record_start` field

From: Fedor Indutny <fedor_at_indutny.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 16:35:05 -0500

Hello Daniel, David,

Just FYI, this `age` thing was actually suggested by you earlier in this
thread, but I will be more than happy to remove it. May I ask you if the
very first patch in this thread makes more sense now?

Attached it just in case. If it looks better - I will amend man page with
required info. Please let me know!

Thank you,
Fedor.

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:12 AM, Daniel Stenberg <daniel_at_haxx.se> wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Jan 2016, David Drysdale wrote:
>
> Personally, I'd lean towards not including the age / reserved extension
>> mechanism. None of the other structures that describe particular resource
>> records have it, and the first/rest marker is just an accidental omission
>> from the TXT structure, so just having a new, complete, structure seems
>> sensible.
>>
>
> However, I'm happy to defer to Daniel's opinion, so I'd suggest leaving
>> as-is for now.
>>
>
> I think I'm inclined to agree with you David. No other funtion has such a
> mechanism so it'll just stand out as a weird anomaly. Even though I may
> have introduced that thought previously in this thread, I don't think I'm
> liking it very much here. Let's make an effort to make clean and
> understandable function APIs and we deprecate (primarily by documenting
> that fact) those that we replace with better ones.
>
> Then at some point in time we can just cut out the old ones and release
> c-ares version 2 without the old cruft.
>
> - ares_data.c:163: I like to add a /* FALLTHROUGH */ comment for
>> deliberate
>> case fall through (I have a vague memory that it shuts up some lint
>> warning too).
>>
>
> Yes, for example: without that comment the Coverity scanner will warn for
> it.
>
> --
>
> / daniel.haxx.se
>

Received on 2016-01-28