On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 09:01 -0700, you wrote:
> peer(x, y); // Create a peering between the two endpoints. > peer(y, x); // Idempotent. Peerings are symmetric. > x.peer(y); // Create a peering between the two endpoints. > y.peer(x); // Idempotent. Peerings are symmetric. I would prefer the 2nd way for consistenct, as all the other operations use the method-based scheme. The idempotency seems secondary to that I would say. Related question: what exactly are the semantics if only one side of the peering is set up? > - Bindings: For Python, I'm considering switching to pybind11 [1], > which provides a much more convenient API than SWIG and supports > modern C++11. Hmm ... I see the appeal but it would introduce a new dependency and its Python-specific (I assume), whereas with SWIG it's easier to add more languages later. Is that worth the benefit of switching? Robin -- Robin Sommer * ICSI/LBNL * ro...@icir.org * www.icir.org/robin _______________________________________________ bro-dev mailing list bro-dev@bro.org http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev