Closed systemcrash closed 10 months ago
I guess it depends on how it looks.
Example?
My PR is just a proposal - if you have a better way to implement it, please do.
The main idea with this PR is that the users who know the(ir) DNS, will recognize what they look at quickly. Take care of complexity, but don't (try not to) hide important info 😄
I added a field RecordTypes
. This field contains (eventually) a list of record types the abstract service regroup.
I also added a commit to show them in the interface, behind a setting.
Here is the new setting entry:
And in the interface, the RR type displayed:
Do you think we can do better?
This looks fine.
Hi @systemcrash!
You suggest something interesting here!
The primary goal of the interface is to abstract the complexity of the DNS. Reintroducing the record's type is like reintroducing the complexity. BUT for people already familiar with the DNS, our abstraction adds an unwanted step.
Instead of changing the title of the DNS abstraction, what do you think of adding an attribute listing the resource types handled by the abstraction, in
ServiceInfos
?