[Bro-Dev] Configuration framework syntax proposal

Johanna Amann johanna at corelight.com
Thu Sep 21 09:13:36 PDT 2017



On 21 Sep 2017, at 9:10, Siwek, Jon wrote:

>> 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.

This actually was my point - which I apparently did not make clear. As 
long as it is only for display it is not a problem - I just don't want 
it to be used for identification :)

Johanna


More information about the bro-dev mailing list