Implement CachingExecutor using cache TTL, deprecate old CachedExecutor
#129
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
WyriHaximus
approved these changes
Jul 8, 2019
Member
Author
|
@WyriHaximus I've just updated this to respect the TTL values given in each record 👍 |
Member
|
@clue awesome! |
WyriHaximus
approved these changes
Jul 8, 2019
jsor
approved these changes
Jul 8, 2019
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR implements a whole new
CachingExecutorand deprecates the existingCachedExecutorbecause it is broken beyond repair. As part of this changeset, we now ensure that we cache the whole respone message including all records from the RRset (fxies #119). Additionally, we no longer cache truncated response messages as per the RFC.This initial implements always uses a 60s cache TTL for each response message, irrespective of the TTL indicated for each record (see #81). We believe this is a reasonable compromise as an initial version that should not affect most common use cases. A follow-up PR should implement a more sophisticated TTL logic in the future and should respect the TTL values for each record (within reasonable limits as discussed in #81 and #116).This implements now respects the TTL indicated for each record (see #81) and uses a 60s cache TTL for negative messages.
Resolves #119
Resolves #81
Builds on top of #127