[Bro-Dev] Configuration framework syntax proposal

[Siwek, Jon]

> On Sep 21, 2017, at 10:37 AM, Johanna Amann <johanna at corelight.com> wrote:
> 
> The only thing that I would like to avoid (which is obviously separate
> from this) is internally remapping variable names to configuration names
> in a non-reversible manner; then one suddenly has to think about what to
> do when names conflict (several variable names being able to automatically
> map to the same configuration name). But - that seem to be separate
> concern :)

Still not sure how much of an issue that is, provided the display names are only for display and not used to actually locate/update identifier values.  E.g. if a user sees 2 “User Name” fields in a UI, I think we’re still able to fall back on the broxygen documentation comments to provide more context to the user.  Or if theres standardized/automatic conventions for these display names that are based on modules/namespacing, I’m not sure how often you’d even see such conflicts, or ’d expect they’d get patched out pretty rapidly by the community when they pop up.

- Jon