[Zeek-Dev] support for event handlers using a subset of parameters

[Vlad Grigorescu]

I think compatibility is a growing issue with scripts being released as
plugins. I'm already seeing some code shift to:

> @if (Version ...)
> new event
> @else
> old event

I _think_ I like Seth's idea of records, but I'm still thinking it through.
It would formalize a growing trend towards moving more parameters into
records anyway. If we're worried about backwards compatibility, then maybe
we have a built in version number in each record. Whenever fields are
added/removed, or there are more subtle contextual changes, the version
number could increase.

As a concrete example, the is_server parameter of the ssh_capabilities
event was being set backwards (effectively as "is_client.") I introduced a
change[1] where the is_server parameter was corrected, but now how to
interpret the value depended on the Bro version. This is a very subtle
case, where no field was added or deleted, but users were still expected to
change their code.

  --Vlad

[1] - <https://github.com/zeek/zeek/pull/191>

On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 5:10 PM Seth Hall <seth at corelight.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 6 Feb 2019, at 10:48, Jon Siwek wrote:
>
> > We can't magically change that user's code.  We have to, somehow, let
> > that work as it is, without user intervention.
>
> Yeah, I think that's right.  I was trying to come up with some proposed
> model for indicating that you're specifying named parameters but that
> would still force existing code to be updated so that it could keep
> using the existing model.
>
> One thing I've been thinking about a little bit is how much we're
> concerning ourselves with maintaining perfect backward compatibility and
> if there is some benefit to breaking a bit of backward compatibility for
> something truly nicer?  Like, should we have some specialized syntax for
> specifying named parameter use?  Should we have something like anonymous
> records where you specify a variant of record syntax for named
> parameters?  (ruby comes to mind for this, but I've seen people do
> similar things in c too)
>
> I'm just wondering if we should do a one-time source compatibility break
> to could get some tangible benefit in usability or understanding.  I
> think Robin's concern is about backing us into a corner with a syntax
> that makes code confusing.  Is that correct Robin?
>
>    .Seth
>
> --
> Seth Hall * Corelight, Inc * www.corelight.com
> _______________________________________________
> zeek-dev mailing list
> zeek-dev at zeek.org
> http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/zeek-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/pipermail/zeek-dev/attachments/20190206/c3897d9e/attachment-0001.html