robin at icir.org
Mon Jun 6 08:12:46 PDT 2011
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 09:47 -0500, John wrote:
> What's the reason for not providing a __load__.bro convenience for the optional packages?
For the optional packages, there'll be some which make sense to load
only in specific situations. My thinking is that by not providing a
__load__, we make sure people actually take a look at what they are
I'm not too strong on this though and do see the convinience of having
the __load__ there as well.
> Another thing came to my mind: will "all.bro" be excluding optional
That depends on what all.bro's purpose is. So far we have primarily
used it for testing to make sure all scripts load correctly. For that,
the optional pieces should be included.
But perhaps we should provide two separate scripts: (1) the current
all.bro for testing, perhaps renamed to "test-all.bro" or something
like that; (2) an "all.bro" for users that pulls in all of the basic
stuff that's reasonable to load by default, but not including the
optional scripts. Perhaps we find a nicer name for that one too (it
would be kind of a new "mt.bro").
Robin Sommer * Phone +1 (510) 722-6541 * robin at icir.org
ICSI/LBNL * Fax +1 (510) 666-2956 * www.icir.org
More information about the bro-dev