63a02fc04e
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 |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| dns | ||