RE: Net_DNS Package

Hey Russ,

 

I haven't put it up on a public repository yet, mostly because I haven't put
the license info in the files yet, and I didn't feel it was complete enough
to pass around.

 

It needs a lot of work still, but you can grab a copy here:

 

http://mrdns.com/net_dns/Net_DNS2_0.1.tar.gz

 

I've got a simple TODO file- it's missing some key features like updates and
zone transfers- once I had those working, I was going to build a test suite
to validate everything, as I'm sure there are off bits here and there.

 

Obviously keeping one version around is preferable, but moving forward, and
keeping backwards compatibility for PHP 4 is rather counter-intuitive- I'm
not sure what the general consensus is on this- but to me it seems pointless
to keep packages that far backwards compatible. For the projects I use it
for, it's completely un-acceptable.

 

You can do simple examples with this package like:

 

require_once 'Net_DNS2/Net/DNS2.php';

 

$r = new Net_DNS2_Resolver(array('nameservers' =>
array('76.9.192.97','76.9.192.98')));

 

$response = $r->query("google.com", "A");

 

print_r($response);

 

any comments / suggestions are welcome,

 

Mike

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: R P Herrold [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: August-16-10 10:14 AM
To: Mike Pultz
Cc: 'Daniel O'Connor'; [email protected]
Subject: Net_DNS Package

 

On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Mike Pultz wrote:

 

> I've been going over the changes in "my" version of Net_DNS 

> in an attempt to create patches to release to the package, 

> and I realized I've made a *lot* of changes- our system 

> required PHP5 style classes, and exceptions, so I've made a 

> lot of fundamental changes.

 

> So, I'd like to instead propose a Net_DNS2 package- I've 

> probably got 75% of it complete- so far some highlights:

 

> - many more RR's supported

 

Is there a draft Net_DNS2 at say, github, that I might clone 

and examine?   I assume you have a ROADMAP, or Requirements 

Document as well.  In following this list I see an emphasis on 

adding unit tests as well

 

I was looking at a couple of patches we apply:

      tsig-hmac-md5.patch.patch.txt

      tsig-parse-binary.patch.patch.txt

 

and some manual edits not yet reduced to patches [some 

brokenness in AAAA record validation], and thinking last week 

that I needed to CO the new release and update those patches, 

preparatory to filing them in the bug tracker for upstreaming

 

That way, perhaps the existing package could be merged, and 

refactored into the new form, and carrying two version around 

avoided?

 

-- Russ herrold