Single slave zone definition for two view (cache file name problem)

[Matus UHLAR - fantomas]

>On 18.03.2015 13:02, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>>>> On 18.03.15 11:48, Constantin Stefanov wrote:
>>>>> then both views will refernce ther same writable file, won't they? Or am
>>>>> I missing something about "in-view" directive?
>>
>>> On 18.03.2015 11:56, Matus UHLAR - fantomas wrote:
>>>> maybe you could put all those zone definitions into one file and include it
>>>> in each view.
>>
>> On 18.03.15 12:05, Constantin Stefanov wrote:
>>> I can't. It stopped working after upgrade to 9.10, but worked before
>>> with 9.6. And the question is how to keep the config as simple as it was
>>> before upgrade.
>>
>> I mean, the "in-view" definitions...

On 18.03.15 13:10, Konstantin Stefanov wrote:
>So now I have to have two definitions for every slave zone in different
>files. Well, it is the thing I did, but I do not like it.
>
>Requirement to have 2 synced definitions in 2 different places leads to
>bugs.

and what did you have before? 
multiple definitions of the same zones with the same filenames, which leads
to bugs (although you were lucky not to encounter them)

now you can have:

definitions of zones with filename in one general view

file with definitions of zones with "in-view".

multiple inclusions of the file in multiple views.

>>>> the only other way is stop using views...
... you still can stop using views.

-- 
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar at fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.