refresh_callback: zone , after bind9 upgrade
Brad Knowles
brad.knowles at skynet.be
Thu Aug 9 23:53:51 UTC 2001
At 11:19 PM +0000 8/9/01, Barry Margolin wrote:
> 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)?
BIND 9 was a clean rewrite from scratch, using the basic
principles of proper nameserver design. Therefore, there was no code
re-use from BIND 8, nor was there much error message re-use, since I
understand that guys like Paul Vixie and Mark Andrews (who know the
BIND 8 code backwards and forwards) were not much involved in doing
BIND 9.
Making a point of going through the BIND 8 code and writing down
every single error message and the circumstances in which that error
message cropped up, so that this behaviour could be perfectly
duplicated in BIND 9, was simply not an important design criteria.
> 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.
If you really feel this strongly about it, then I'd suggest you
stop bitching, and start reviewing some BIND 8 code, so as to bring
forward all your favourite error messages. I'm sure that code
contributions would be more than welcomed by the ISC and Nominum.
> 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.
This is a different issue altogether, and does not relate back to
your previous statement:
You guys are presumably intimately familiar with most of
BIND 8's error messages. You could have simply reused
the old wording in cases where they applied, but instead
you decided to come up with new wording from scratch.
I will agree that good error reporting is highly desirable.
However, I also understand how much work went into a complete,
ground-up re-write of BIND 9 based on first principles.
When you get an entire team of people involved in doing a project
like this, and they get into serious "hack mode", it is not at all
unusual to find that techies naturally write error messages for other
techies (i.e., mostly their co-workers on the team), and even if you
ask them to spend a lot of time to try and make the wording as
crystal clear as possible, the result is frequently still extremely
opaque and obtuse to any outsider (including people like you and me).
This is life. You can either learn to deal with it, and do your
part to help fix the situation, or not. The choice is up to you.
> It takes no more time or resources to compose understandable error messages
> than to compose cryptic ones.
Not at all true. Composing error messages that are actually
generally understandable is one of the most difficult tasks in
writing a program, because you basically have to summarize into a
single line the entire state of the massive million-line (or
whatever) program, and express enough information to be useful
without expressing so much information as to cause data overload.
Getting that balance just right is one of the rarest gifts I've
ever seen from any programmer.
IMO, this is something that the folks at Men & Mice do really,
really well with DNS Expert Professional -- the first DNS debugging
tool I've ever encountered that has plain English descriptions of the
error.
--
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles at skynet.be>
H4sICIFgXzsCA2RtYS1zaWcAPVHLbsMwDDvXX0H0kkvbfxiwVw8FCmzAzqqj1F4dy7CdBfn7
Kc6wmyGRFEnvvxiWQoCvqI7RSWTcfGXQNqCUAnfIU+AT8OZ/GCNjRVlH0bKpguJkxiITZqes
MxwpSucyDJzXxQEUe/ihgXqJXUXwD9ajB6NHonLmNrUSK9nacHQnH097szO74xFXqtlbT3il
wMsBz5cnfCR5cEmci0Rj9u/jqBbPeES1I4PeFBXPUIT1XDSOuutFXylzrQvGyboWstCoQZyP
dxX4dLx0eauFe1x9puhoi0Ao1omEJo+BZ6XLVNaVpWiKekxN0VK2VMpmAy+Bk7ZV4SO+p1L/
uErNRS/qH2iFU+iNOtbcmVt9N16lfF7tLv9FXNj8AiyNcOi1AQAA
More information about the bind-users
mailing list