[Bro-Dev] New proposal (Re: CBAN naming)

Siwek, Jon jsiwek at illinois.edu
Tue Jun 7 10:55:14 PDT 2016


> On Jun 6, 2016, at 10:46 PM, Robin Sommer <robin at icir.org> wrote:
> 
> So sounds like this proposal is something you can agree with?

Yes.

> 
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 02:01 +0000, you wrote:
> 
>> So scripts do not autoload, but plugins do?
> 
> Thinking more about that I would answer: yes. 

Ack.

>> And if the process isn’t the same in both cases, is that also in
>> conflict w/ the goal of a developer being able to promote a
>> script-only thing into a binary plugin without users noticing?
> 
> Isn't that more about moving some functionality, like bifs? I don't
> think a plugin would replace the scripts completely.

Yeah, I’m not seeing specific problems thinking about it more now.

> Ok, then let's rename "package" in the current docs. I propose
> "module" as the replacement: it's not quite right regarding the
> language's module concept but close enough I would say.

I’d appreciate if anyone would think a bit about whether “package” still actually makes sense to use in the current context and doesn’t actually need a rename.

My point about a package being something that can both require metadata and not require metadata might be clear enough to explain based on context?  E.g. From Bro/BroControl’s point of a view packages don’t require metadata.  From the package manager tool’s perspective, packages require metadata.

Seems like obvious/expected behavior from user’s view and not ambiguous?

- Jon



More information about the bro-dev mailing list