[Bro-Dev] libbroker status/plans

Siwek, Jon jsiwek at illinois.edu
Fri Oct 24 08:02:57 PDT 2014

> On Oct 23, 2014, at 5:20 PM, Robin Sommer <robin at icir.org> wrote:
> What I meant was ensuring the two stay in sync. Say if we added a new
> capability to C++, can we trigger somehow a test failure if we forget
> to add it to C?

Don’t have any ideas for how to do that at the moment, but, yes, it would be nice to have that type of coverage test.

> I was imagining for 2.4 we'd leave the BroControl parts in place as
> they are now, i.e., using the old comm framework. Were you planing to
> replace that already?

Yeah, I was thinking the user would be given a binary choice: either everything uses new comm or everything uses old comm.  But I guess it also works to say old comm is still available for everything it used to be, but additionally/concurrently there’s the option of trying the new comm for tasks related to A, B, and C.  I’m not sure what approach I like best, but may make sense to go in to the integration process with the intent of just making incremental additions and then see how far we get.

- Jon

More information about the bro-dev mailing list