[Bro-Dev] Broker status update

[Robin Sommer]

On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 09:01 -0700, you wrote:

>         peer(x, y); // Create a peering between the two endpoints.
>         peer(y, x); // Idempotent. Peerings are symmetric.

>         x.peer(y); // Create a peering between the two endpoints.
>         y.peer(x); // Idempotent. Peerings are symmetric.

I would prefer the 2nd way for consistenct, as all the other
operations use the method-based scheme. The idempotency seems
secondary to that I would say.

Related question: what exactly are the semantics if only one side of
the peering is set up?

>     - Bindings: For Python, I'm considering switching to pybind11 [1],
>       which provides a much more convenient API than SWIG and supports
>       modern C++11.

Hmm ... I see the appeal but it would introduce a new dependency and
its Python-specific (I assume), whereas with SWIG it's easier to add
more languages later. Is that worth the benefit of switching?

Robin

-- 
Robin Sommer * ICSI/LBNL * robin at icir.org * www.icir.org/robin