[Bro-Dev] Feedback on configuration framework implementation
johanna at corelight.com
Thu Nov 30 10:01:19 PST 2017
> 1. Thinking of handlers that may change values and are associated with a
> priority, hooks come to my mind (e.g. Intel::extend_match). Are
> functions preferable compared to hooks here?
In this case - yes. The problem with hooks is that they cannot return a
value, which is used here to let user change (or reject) changes to
> > config reader
> > =============
> > The config reader provides a way to read configuration files back into
> > Bro. Most importantly it automatically converts values to the correct
> > types. This is important because it is at least inconvenient (and
> > sometimes near impossible) to perform the necessary type conversions in
> > Bro scripts themselves. This is especially true for sets/vectors.
> > Configuration generally look like this:
> > [option name][tab/spaces][new variable value]
> 2. Are module namespaces part of the option name (e.g.
> "Notice::reply_to" vs. "reply_to")?
More information about the bro-dev