[Bro-Dev] 'async' update and proposal

Matthias Vallentin vallentin at icir.org
Tue Mar 13 12:26:04 PDT 2018

>I think we should instead just skip the "async" keyword altogether.
>Requiring it at some places, but not others, hurts more than it helps
>in my opinion. 

This sounds fine to me. Given that Bro is inherently an asynchronous 
language, it makes sense to for those semantics to trickle down to the 
function call level. In my opinion, it's in line with user expectations: 
processing is network-event driven. A function finishes when it has all 
data it needs for its processing - whether being synchronous or 

On a separate note: for asynchronous operations to be truly useful, they 
need to propagate to the lowest level. That concerns particularly file 
I/O in addition to network I/O. Do you have any plans to go there as 
well (perhaps later down the line)? I am asking because there's a 
natural fit to do asynchronous file I/O with CAF. It just hasn't been 
tackled yet.


More information about the bro-dev mailing list