Request for Review - Two new modules 
Author Message
 Request for Review - Two new modules

Hello,

I am working on two modules used in the ZoneMaster project
( http://www.*-*-*.com/ ) for quite some time and would like to
contribute them to the archive.

Both of them are strongly related to each other but kept strictly
separate. They are still in development but already used in production
at a local ISP.

The first one can be used to manage a BIND configuration and its file
representation (named.conf). You can generate a new configuration or
parse an existing one. The configuration can be modified and of course
dumped to a file on disk. So far, I call this module Bind::Config.

The second one can be used to manage the configuration of a certain
zone. You can generate a new zone configuration or parse an existing
one. The zone can be modified and dumped to a file on disk. The zone
file format used is equivalent to that of BIND, which in turn is equal
to RFC 1034 (and others). Chances are that the module is useful for
other DNS daemons than BIND but I think it makes sense to group both
modules under one category and I believe that BIND is in use most
widely. So far, I call this module Bind::Zone.

Of course I found out that there are modules that had a similar
intention at CPAN but none of them suits the need for a project like
ZoneMaster:

Net::Bind
    Once intended to do something similar in 1997. No comparable modules
available at all.

Bind::Conf_Parser
    Only related to configuration. Very file related, so no in-memory
representation of a configuration object

Does the namespace Bind::Zone and Bind::Config sounds right ? I choose
this name scheme in analogy to Apache::Session.

regards...Andy



Fri, 06 May 2005 01:12:19 GMT  
 Request for Review - Two new modules
[snip]

Quote:
> Net::Bind

The protocol is named BIND, so I would suggest Net::BIND.

[snip]

Quote:
> Bind::Conf_Parser

I would suggest Net::BIND::Config.

[snip]

Quote:
> Does the namespace Bind::Zone and Bind::Config sounds right ? I choose
> this name scheme in analogy to Apache::Session.

"Apache" is an application.  "BIND" is a network protocol.

Thus, "Apache" goes in a top-level namespace, and "BIND" ought to go
inside of "Net".

So, Net::BIND::Zone, and Net::BIND::Config.

--
my $n = 2; print +(split //, 'e,4c3H r ktulrnsJ2tPaeh'
."\n1oa! er")[map $n = ($n * 24 + 30) % 31, (42) x 26]



Fri, 06 May 2005 08:07:47 GMT  
 Request for Review - Two new modules

Quote:

> Net::Bind
>     Once intended to do something similar in 1997. No comparable
> modules available at all.

What about Net::DNS::Nameserver ?

--
my $n = 2; print +(split //, 'e,4c3H r ktulrnsJ2tPaeh'
."\n1oa! er")[map $n = ($n * 24 + 30) % 31, (42) x 26]



Fri, 06 May 2005 08:10:14 GMT  
 Request for Review - Two new modules

Quote:


> [snip]
> > Net::Bind

> The protocol is named BIND, so I would suggest Net::BIND.

the protocol is DNS.  the program that implements it is the
Berkeley Internet Name Domain. :)

this doesn't belong in Net::*

--

The Perl Review - a new magazine devoted to Perl
<http://www.theperlreview.com>



Fri, 06 May 2005 08:26:09 GMT  
 Request for Review - Two new modules

Quote:
> Does the namespace Bind::Zone and Bind::Config sounds right ? I choose
> this name scheme in analogy to Apache::Session.

i don't think Bind is the right top level namespace.  it means many other
things too.

how about DNS::BIND::* ?

--

The Perl Review - a new magazine devoted to Perl
<http://www.theperlreview.com>



Fri, 06 May 2005 08:28:14 GMT  
 Request for Review - Two new modules

Quote:


> > Net::Bind
> >     Once intended to do something similar in 1997. No comparable
> > modules available at all.
> What about Net::DNS::Nameserver ?

we're not putting specific applications of a protocol in Net::* anymore.

--

The Perl Review - a new magazine devoted to Perl
<http://www.theperlreview.com>



Fri, 06 May 2005 08:33:16 GMT  
 Request for Review - Two new modules

Quote:



> > > Net::Bind
> > >     Once intended to do something similar in 1997. No comparable
> > > modules available at all.

> > What about Net::DNS::Nameserver ?

> we're not putting specific applications of a protocol in Net::*
> anymore.

Err, that wasn't what I meant.  The Net::DNS::Nameserver module already
exists -- I was asking if that would be suitable for his needs.

--
my $n = 2; print +(split //, 'e,4c3H r ktulrnsJ2tPaeh'
."\n1oa! er")[map $n = ($n * 24 + 30) % 31, (42) x 26]



Fri, 06 May 2005 10:18:04 GMT  
 Request for Review - Two new modules

Quote:

>>>>Net::Bind
>>>>    Once intended to do something similar in 1997. No comparable
>>>>modules available at all.

>>>What about Net::DNS::Nameserver ?

>>we're not putting specific applications of a protocol in Net::*
>>anymore.

> Err, that wasn't what I meant.  The Net::DNS::Nameserver module already
> exists -- I was asking if that would be suitable for his needs.

Well, the Net::DNS::Nameserver class represents a DNS server. It can be
used to handle DNS querys, whereas my modules are completely different.
They can be used to manage the configuration of an existing DNS server,
namely BIND from the internet software consortium (http://www.isc.org).

This is also the reason why I would prefer not to use the Net::
namespace. The modules do not assist in any network protocol related
matters.

I agree with Brian when he writes that "bind" means other things than
Berkeley Internet Name Domain and thus might not be a good top level
namespace.

so long...Andy



Fri, 06 May 2005 22:39:09 GMT  
 Request for Review - Two new modules
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 18:12:19 +0100

Quote:

> Of course I found out that there are modules that had a similar
> intention at CPAN but none of them suits the need for a project like
> ZoneMaster:

> Net::Bind
>     Once intended to do something similar in 1997. No comparable modules
> available at all.

> Bind::Conf_Parser
>     Only related to configuration. Very file related, so no in-memory
> representation of a configuration object

How about DNS::ZoneParse?
Recently I've used it to parse and create DNS Bind zone files (with a
little patch however that I can submit here)

Quote:
> Does the namespace Bind::Zone and Bind::Config sounds right ? I choose
> this name scheme in analogy to Apache::Session.

[OT]: Maybe you've chosen a wrong example... Apache::Session namespace is a
historical error: there is a direct tie between Apache::Session and
mod_perl? ;-)

        - Enrico



Sat, 07 May 2005 23:09:48 GMT  
 Request for Review - Two new modules

Quote:
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 18:12:19 +0100

> How about DNS::ZoneParse?
> Recently I've used it to parse and create DNS Bind zone files (with a
> little patch however that I can submit here)
> > Does the namespace Bind::Zone and Bind::Config sounds right ? I choose
> > this name scheme in analogy to Apache::Session.

if this is BIND specific, BIND should be in the name.

--

The Perl Review - a new magazine devoted to Perl
<http://www.theperlreview.com>



Sun, 08 May 2005 11:25:54 GMT  
 
 [ 10 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Request for Review - New Module

2. Module MultOut.pm (request review)

3. New Module into CPAN - Namespace & Review question

4. New module - review?

5. REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: new modules (group maintenance, ascii DB, system analysis tools)

6. Request for comments on namespace(s) for new modules

7. Request for comments on new module: Net::BGP4

8. request for discussion - new module Date::Axis

9. REQUEST FOR COMMENTS: new modules (group maintenance, ascii DB, system analysis tools)

10. Newbie request for script review

11. Code review requested, please.

12. small CGI.pm hack, code review request

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software