On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Daniel Stenberg <daniel_at_haxx.se> wrote:

>
> There's just these tiny quirks in c-ares left that prevents this from
> happening...
>

I'm probably misunderstanding what you're saying but I wanted to put my best
argument forward on why both c-ares and threaded are useful.

The threaded resolver may be a better fit for Intranets (at least on
Windows).

In the Internet, you have FQDN and DNS only - great for c-ares. C-ares is
lightweight and fast and handles this great.

In the Intranet, you have:
  * non-FQDN (and Windows has some really arcane search rules)
  * multicast DNS
  * NetBIOS and NIS and hosts files
  * Microsoft's DirectAccess has this thing called NRPT

I'm guessing that implementing and maintaining these features is probably
more effort than implementing ares in the first place. In addition,
customers expect that if Microsoft or Apple releases an improvement to the
name resolution library, that applications transparently pick it up.

The good thing is that many intranet apps don't use a lot of connections so
the overhead of the threaded resolver can be justified.

-Costa
Received on 2009-08-14