Code review comment for lp:~martin-v/zodb/ipv6

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 3:56 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin@v.loewis.de> wrote:
>>> The IPv6 server code is entirely different: typically, you either
>>> bind to all addresses (v4 and v6) of a system (preferably using
>>> dual-stack sockets using a wildcard address), or you bind to a (list
>>> of) specifically configured addresses; no DNS involved.
>>
>> I wonder why the asymmetry.  Or, at least, why it wouldn't at least
>> make sense to at least listen for both v4 and v6 for the same host name.
>
> It always was asymmetric: you can use a wildcard address on the server,
> but not on the client, as a special feature of the socket API.
>
> Some servers support binding to multiple explicit interfaces (e.g.
> Apache Listen), but I'm not aware of a precedent that supports
> DNS in that part of the configuration, and supports DNS returning
> multiple addresses (i.e. expanding them to multiple Listen statements).
>
>> I have wanted to be able to listen on both a TCP socket and a
>> unix-domain socket.  There's nothing hard about this for ZEO per se,
>> but figuring how to spell this in ZConfig schema has been just enough
>> of a pain to make it not happen. :)
>
> Ok. So do you want me to change the patch to bind to multiple addresses?

No. I was just mentioning that I'd considered adding support for listening
on multiple addresses.

...

>> I don't mind trying multiple paths (addresses) to do the low-level
>> connections, but I'm worried about making multiple connections to the
>> same server.
>
> I could try to find out how to prevent that: it should be possible
> to keep track what DNS names each connection originated from, and then
> close any redundant connections that get connected (assuming zrpc
> can deal with connections on which no data gets transmitted).

Nah. The connection logic is already too complicated.
I plan a major refactoring of it down the road.

>> I'm good with merging the branch.  Do you want to do this (using some
>> LP tool)? Or do you want me to?
>
> I would rather see you merge the patch.

Cool. That seems easier.

> However, if you want me to
> make some modifications first, we can also wait (I won't be able to
> work on this really for the next two weeks).

No, I'm fine with it as it is.

Thanks.

Jim

--
Jim Fulton