On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 18:55 -0500, you wrote:
> What's the reason for supporting both static and dynamic plugin types? That's exactly what I haven't really made up my mind about yet. :) I think there's benefit to having a single Bro binary that comes with all the standard functionality. One piece is portability: dynamic linking may not be feasible/possible on some platforms (like tiny devices, or exotic OSs where our cmake setup may fail to do the right thing). And I generally like the notion of having just a single binary with all the standard code included; means less can go wrong (like version mismatches, etc.) In terms of performance, I wouldn't be too worried actually, although it's something that needs testing. Robin -- Robin Sommer * Phone +1 (510) 722-6541 * ro...@icir.org ICSI/LBNL * Fax +1 (510) 666-2956 * www.icir.org/robin _______________________________________________ bro-dev mailing list bro-dev@bro.org http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev
