[Bro-Dev] Configuration framework syntax proposal
jsiwek at illinois.edu
Thu Sep 21 07:51:32 PDT 2017
> On Sep 21, 2017, at 8:18 AM, Seth Hall <seth at corelight.com> wrote:
> Yep, this notion of making things abstract-able into easy configuration
> interfaces and/or good documentation (using the inline broxygen
> comments) was always in the proposal, Johanna pointed it out in the
> original code sample.
Yeah, I was wondering what a UI would currently look like if you tried to use existing functionality, e.g. just identifier names and broxygen comments. Like Jan, I had a hard time understanding the benefit having two names for the same value: the identifier and config string. It seems to push more burden than needed onto script authors, like maybe they don’t really care about a UI, but want the improved configuration capabilities. i.e. maybe the requirements of a UI can be separate from the requirements of the new “configuration variables” concept.
Maybe one thing to do is try to actually build/design your ideal UI and/or configuration tool starting with just the existing Bro functionality. You’ll definitely get an understanding of the low-level requirements that way. i.e. first design/build the most basic user experience that functionally works and then, from that state, add whatever you think will be an improvement.
> There is just something about the idea of exposing variable names to
> users (even if it's wrapped in a gui) that is intensely unpalatable to
> me. It's pretty much unheard of among other types of software. It
> would be like exposing internal variable names to command line programs
> instead of abstracting it into easy flags (i.e. -a or --help) or, if in
> a gui a text entry box had a label next to it like
> "GUI::My_Program::user_name" instead of showing "Username".
I’m half facetious in bringing it up, but have you seen CMake? https://cmake.org/runningcmake/
More information about the bro-dev