Last year I had trouble getting isc_expand_dpb() to work. It turns out =
that it CAN'T work as described in the manual. The problems are in the =
interface, not in the code.
What's wrong with isc_expand_dpb() -=20
[1] There is a difference between the size of a buffer and the size of =
the data in the buffer. The API says that isc_expand_dpb() allocates a =
new buffer if the new material will not fit into the old buffer. =
However, the length parameter is the size of the data in the buffer; =
isc_expand_dbp() has no way of knowing how big the old buffer is.=20
[2] The API says that isc_expand_dpb() allocates a new buffer if it =
needs it. However, there is nothing said about what happens to the old =
buffer. There is no deallocation of the old buffer.
Because these flaws are in the functional specs of isc_expand_dpb(), and =
not in the code itself, I propose to repair them by providing two new =
functions:
isc_fill_dpb() takes exactly four parameters:
A pointer to a DBP. Before the first call to isc_fill_dbp(), the =
caller should set this pointer to NULL. isc_fill_dbp() will do all =
allocating of the dbp buffer.
A pointer to a short int giving the length of the data in the =
dbp_buffer. This is purely an output of isc_fill_dpb(), and is provided =
solely for compatablity with isc_attach_database(), which needs this =
number as a parameter.
A parameter code for the string that is to be inserted into the dbp.
A pointer to the string that is to be inserted into the dbp.
Note that isc_fill_dbp() does not take variable arguments, like =
isc_expand_dpb(). Variable arguments must bypass compile-time type =
checking, and thus are error-prone.
isc_free_dpb() takes exactly one parameter, the pointer to the DPB as =
created and filled by isc_fill_dbp(). This must be called AFTER the call =
to isc_attach_database, to release the memory in the buffer.
Code calling these function would look like this:
char * username =3D ...;
char * password =3D ...;
char * dpb =3D NULL;
short dbp_length;
isc_fill_dpb( & dpb, & dpb_length, isc_dpb_user_name, username );
isc_fill_dpb( & dpb, & dpb_length, isc_dpb_password, password );
isc_attach_database( & status_vector, strlen( dbname ), dbname,=20
& dbhandle, dpb_length, dbp );
isc_free_dpb( dbp );
To implement this we would need a new dpb code which the caller never =
sees and which marks the allocated length of the dpb and the actual data =
length of the dbp (two numbers). Because shorts look a lot smaller now =
than they did a few years ago, I'd like to make these four byte numbers. =
Therefore the length information block would be ten bytes:
one byte for isc_dpb_length
one byte with the value 9
a four byte unsigned integer, the allocated length, standard (VAX?) =
format
a four byte unsigned integer, the data length, in standard (VAX?) =
format
I believe that this implementation meets the following criteria:
* It constructs a dbp which, with the exception of the new =
isc_dpb_length field, is completely compatable with the existing dpb =
format. I am led to understand that isc_attach_database() ignores any =
dpb code that it doesn't understand; therefore it will ignore the =
isc_dpb_length code and work as before.
* It can be fully thread-friendly. The application can construct two =
dbp's at the same time, interleaving the calls to isc_fill_dbp() at =
will, with no clash of buffer.
* There is no memory leak (unless the caller forgets the call to =
isc_free_dpb()). No matter how many times the caller calls =
isc_free_dbp(), no matter how many times isc_free_dbp() must re-allocate =
the dbp buffer; because isc_free_dpb() knows how the buffer was =
allocated, it will free it whenever it must replace it.
* with fixed parameters to isc_free_dpb(), not variable parameters, we =
have type checking on the code.
* When we wish to, we can cause isc_attach_database to store the =
dpb_length in an unsigned long integer, and recognize the isc_dpb_length =
code, updating the (small) number it received from the caller with the =
(large) number it finds in the dbp itself. When we do this we will no =
longer be limited to 32767 bytes in the dbp.=20
I am a little concerned that the length of a string in the dbp buffer is =
limited to 255 characters by the use of one byte as a length byte; file =
names under Windows 98 are limited to 32,767 bytes. If the user calls =
isc_fill_dpb() to put the strings into the dbp, we can set the format =
code to "2" and make the upgrade invisible to the caller.
Of course we need to keep isc_expand_dpb() in the API to support old =
code; however we should discourage it's use for new code and shift over =
to the new functions. Users would be warned that they can use =
isc_fill_dbp() and isc_free_dpb(), or they can do it themselves, but =
they should not mix methods as isc_fill_dpb() is not guaranteed to =
follow the format given in the API.
I welcome any comments. According to the API, isc_expand_dpb() and =
isc_attach_database() are the only two functions that use the dbp at =
all. But there is a TPB - maybe we should make the code handle both? How =
does this fix fit in with plans that others have?
|
