On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 8:04 AM, Dan Williams<d...@redhat.com> wrote: > Well, Marcel had some valid issues with dnsmasq, and others may want to > use bind, so in the end we probably want a GInterface for this and then > have classes that implement the GInterface for each of the specific > caching name daemons. I don't really have a problem with that; we'll > probably have to add arguments and a config file option for which one > you want to use, because people may want to use dnsmasq underneath > chromium too and have chromium still use 127.0.0.1.
I only wrote the code using org.chromium.LocalDNSCache because that's what I have running here. For the final version, I think it should use the dnsmasq interface[1]. I've no desire to fork interfaces with out a good reason. (The dnsmasq interface isn't very pretty, but I don't know if that's a good enough reason.) I'd be happy to write a GInterface to abstract the configuration if that's what's needed. But shouldn't DBus *be* that interface? I suppose if BIND isn't going to implement a DBus interface then we have little choice, but rewriting BIND configs is a rather scary proposition. Would people want a templating system in order to have NetworkManager write a config which preserved their BIND preferences? [1] http://www.thekelleys.org.uk/dnsmasq/docs/DBus-interface > No problem; everyone has their own. A few of the guidelines are > documented in the CONTRIBUTING but I see now that I should extend that > significantly. > > A few style comments... Thanks! Hopefully I've fixed up those style issues. (Note: rebased on top of up-to-date tree). Also updated the CONTRIBUTING file with some of your style points: http://github.com/agl/NetworkManager/commits/agl Cheers AGL -- Adam Langley a...@imperialviolet.org http://www.imperialviolet.org _______________________________________________ NetworkManager-list mailing list NetworkManager-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list