Re: Small patch for dnsjnio compatibility

[Brian W. <bwe...@xb...>]

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, Stefano Bagnara wrote:

> Brian Wellington ha scritto:
>> On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Al...@no... wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to sound you out on a small potential patch for dnsjava. The
>>> patch would allow dnsjnio to exist in its own namespace, and not to have
>>> to declare classes in the org.xbill.DNS package (an ugly hack which is
>>> starting to get in the way).
>>>
>>> Basically, the patch would involve changing the access of some classes in
>>> the org.xbill.DNS package.
>>>
>>> If you thought you might be able to include such a patch, I'd happily
>>> knock one up against the latest dnsjava code (or the 2.0.6 release -
>>> whichever was easiest for you) and submit it before the next dnsjava
>>> release. Does this sound reasonable?
>>
>> Without knowing what the changes are, it's hard to say.
>>
>> Brian
>
> Hi Brian,
>
> maybe a small list is better than a diff in this case. It is all about
> package visibility to be changed to public in order to allow usage in
> different packages.
>
> dnsjnio needs all of this to be made public:
>
> DClass.check method
> Type.check method

These both look reasonable.

> Mnemonic class (for the Mnemonic.toInteger(dclass) usage)

This certainly isn't needed.  It's an internal optimization, and external 
code can just use "new Integer(dclass)".

> Message.TSIG_VERIFIED field
> Message.tsigState (we need to set this to TSIG_VERIFIED in a custom
> resolver)

I'm not sure if it's better to make the fields public or to add 
setSigned() and setVerified() accessors.  It really doesn't make sense to 
export Message.TSIG_VERIFIED and not the other constants.

Brian