[Bro-Dev] CBAN naming

[Siwek, Jon]

> 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” :)

- Jon