Motivation:
There are various known issues in netty-codec-dns:
- Message types are not interfaces, which can make it difficult for a
user to implement his/her own message implementation.
- Some class names and field names do not match with the terms in the
RFC.
- The support for decoding a DNS record was limited. A user had to
encode and decode by him/herself.
- The separation of DnsHeader from DnsMessage was unnecessary, although
it is fine conceptually.
- Buffer leak caused by DnsMessage was difficult to analyze, because the
leak detector tracks down the underlying ByteBuf rather than the
DnsMessage itself.
- DnsMessage assumes DNS-over-UDP.
- To send an EDNS message, a user have to create a new DNS record class
instance unnecessarily.
Modifications:
- Make all message types interfaces and add default implementations
- Rename some classes, properties, and constants to match the RFCs
- DnsResource -> DnsRecord
- DnsType -> DnsRecordType
- and many more
- Remove DnsClass and use an integer to support EDNS better
- Add DnsRecordEncoder/DnsRecordDecoder and their default
implementations
- DnsRecord does not require RDATA to be ByteBuf anymore.
- Add DnsRawRecord as the catch-all record type
- Merge DnsHeader into DnsMessage
- Make ResourceLeakDetector track AbstractDnsMessage
- Remove DnsMessage.sender/recipient properties
- Wrap DnsMessage with AddressedEnvelope
- Add DatagramDnsQuest and DatagramDnsResponse for ease of use
- Rename DnsQueryEncoder to DatagramDnsQueryEncoder
- Rename DnsResponseDecoder to DatagramDnsResponseDecoder
- Miscellaneous changes
- Add StringUtil.TAB
Result:
- Cleaner APi
- Can support DNS-over-TCP more easily in the future
- Reduced memory footprint in the default DnsQuery/Response
implementations
- Better leak tracking for DnsMessages
- Possibility to introduce new DnsRecord types in the future and provide
full record encoder/decoder implementation.
- No unnecessary instantiation for an EDNS pseudo resource record
Related: #3173
Motivation:
DnsNameResolver was using InetSocketAddress.getHostString() which is
only available since Java 7.
Modifications:
Use InetSocketAddress.getHostName() in lieu of getHostString() when the
current Java version is less than 7.
Result:
DnsNameResolver runs fine on Java 6.
Related: #3149
Motivation:
DnsQueryContext, using the DatagramChannel bound in DnsNameResolver,
blindly writes to the channel without checking the bind future for
success.
Modifications:
Check the bindFuture before writing a DNS query to a DatagramChannel
Result:
Bug fixed
Motivation:
DnsNameResolver.testResolveA() tests if the cache works as well as the usual DNS protocol test. To ensure the result from the cache is identical to the result without cache, it compares the two Maps which contain the result of cached/uncached resolution. The comparison of two Maps yields an expected behavior, but the output of the comparison on failure is often unreadable due to its long length.
Modifications:
Compare entry-by-entry for more comprehensible test failure output
Result:
When failure occurs, it's easier to see which domain was the cause of the problem.
Motivation:
So far, we relied on the domain name resolution mechanism provided by
JDK. It served its purpose very well, but had the following
shortcomings:
- Domain name resolution is performed in a blocking manner.
This becomes a problem when a user has to connect to thousands of
different hosts. e.g. web crawlers
- It is impossible to employ an alternative cache/retry policy.
e.g. lower/upper bound in TTL, round-robin
- It is impossible to employ an alternative name resolution mechanism.
e.g. Zookeeper-based name resolver
Modification:
- Add the resolver API in the new module: netty-resolver
- Implement the DNS-based resolver: netty-resolver-dns
.. which uses netty-codec-dns
- Make ChannelFactory reusable because it's now used by
io.netty.bootstrap, io.netty.resolver.dns, and potentially by other
modules in the future
- Move ChannelFactory from io.netty.bootstrap to io.netty.channel
- Deprecate the old ChannelFactory
- Add ReflectiveChannelFactory
Result:
It is trivial to resolve a large number of domain names asynchronously.
