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
63a02fc04e