Question About Terminology

[Chris Buxton]

No, there's no RPC involved.

Chris Buxton
Men & Mice

On Jul 27, 2006, at 9:12 AM, Ronan Flood wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 17:03:20 -0700,
> Chris Buxton <cbuxton at menandmice.com> wrote:
>
>> I am glad to have confirmed that "stub resolver" is acceptable use,
>> though I am not at all surprised that "resolver" by itself is still
>> used to refer to this component. Even with that, general acceptance
>> of the phrase "stub resolver" suggests that "resolver" is
>> sufficiently unspecific to allow for other types of resolvers. But
>> I'm not convinced that use of the term "smart resolver", as we have
>> been doing internally, is warranted.
>
> I think "stub" in this sense is an RPC (remote procedure call) usage.
> The client process needs a resolver, but you don't want a full  
> resolver
> built into each client; so you have a set of routines which looks like
> a resolver, but is just a stub which only marshalls the arguments and
> passes queries on to the actual resolver.
>
> So "stub resolver" and "resolver" are it, really.
>
> The fact that the RPC mechanism uses the same network protocol as the
> resolver itself uses to query nameservers is a neat design decision.
>
> IMHO.
>
> -- 
>                       Ronan Flood <R.Flood at noc.ulcc.ac.uk>
>                         working for but not speaking for
>              Network Services, University of London Computer Centre
>      (which means: don't bother ULCC if I've said something you  
> don't like)
>
>
>