refresh_callback: zone , after bind9 upgrade

[Barry Margolin]

In article <9kv0ca$b9s at pub3.rc.vix.com>,
Kevin Darcy  <kcd at daimlerchrysler.com> wrote:
>Barry, the "refresh_callback" warning message is a diagnostic for the
>refresh_callback() routine, which didn't even *exist* in BIND 8. There is no "old
>wording" which applies, because there is no equivalent part of the code. Mark has

There may not have been an equivalent piece of code, but there certainly
was an equivalent situation.  Both programs perform refreshes, and they
both detect timeouts.  BIND 8 said 'Err/TO getting serial# for "<domain>"'
in the analogous situation.  I can't think of any reason why
refresh_callback() couldn't have used those words, or something similar,
when it detects the timeout.

>already explained that Nominum intends to put "friendly" error messages into
>BIND 9. But it's just not at the top of the priority list. You can argue about

So they think it's better to do it twice than do it right the first time
(which is actually at least the second time, since BIND 1-8 could be
considered the first time)?  Do you really think that they'll find the time
and resources to go back through all the error messages, when there's
always more critical work to be done on the program?  This is the type of
project that typically sits at the bottom of the priority list for years.

>priorities all you want, but I think it's a little disingenuous to say "simply
>reuse[] the old wording".

I don't think they should have reused the old wording.  I think that since
they were doing a complete rewrite, and had to compose new error messages,
they should have composed understandable ones.  It has nothing to do with
priorities, unless you think that "don't be cryptic" needs to be explicitly
on a priority list.  It has to do with doing something well instead of
half-assed (I'm *only* talking about the error messages, not the protocol
implementation), and taking the users into consideration.

It takes no more time or resources to compose understandable error messages
than to compose cryptic ones.  Going back through all the code and redoing
all the error messages -- *that* is alot of work.  I won't hold my breath
waiting for it to happen.

BTW, to the person who posted the suggestion that we go to VMS-style TLA's:
Boo, hiss!

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar at genuity.net
Genuity, Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.