[Bro-Dev] CBAN naming
jsiwek at illinois.edu
Sat Jun 4 10:25:26 PDT 2016
> On Jun 4, 2016, at 11:27 AM, Slagell, Adam J <slagell at illinois.edu> wrote:
> I still strongly disagree with ALL metadata being optional, unless it is automatically cleaned up if they never “finish” putting in required data.
Sorry, I was just talking about in terms of interoperability w/ the client: all metadata is optional and doesn’t magically turn a plugin into something else that can now work with it. A goal for repository submissions is to have some quality checks in place to enforce some minimum metadata to be there.
> I am fine giving preference to the plugin naming because it does require the least amount of changes in current naming conventions.
Right, but just to succinctly summarize all the reasons that I think point toward any form of “package” being used for this project as a poor choice:
- it's too generic and not useful in describing what it is/does (in contrast to “plugin”)
- it would create another term for what is already named a “plugin”. Having two words for the same thing isn’t optimal.
- the term is already in use within Bro for script packages
- it's also already overloaded based on other contexts (e.g. binary packages)
> I will leave it open this weekend for members of the project leadership to jump in if they want, but otherwise let’s go with Bro Plugin Manager (BPM) and bro-bpm.
Yes, I’d go with that, too.
On the exception that someone can come up w/ a longer list of convincing problems regarding the use of “plugin” :)
More information about the bro-dev