> On Jun 4, 2016, at 1:09 PM, Robin Sommer <ro...@icir.org> wrote: > > I really don't like calling these things "plugins", nor calling the > whole thing the "plugin manager". I'm with Jan here: I think that > would be quite misleading in terms of what I believe people associate > with "plugin” normally
My argument is that it is true/factual/objective that scripts may used as a form of plugin. We don’t have any data on exactly what percent of people don’t understand that. If it is a majority, that doesn’t change the fact that the majority has a belief that is not completely true and so it makes sense to go against them in an educational effort. And that task isn’t even difficult. It takes a single sentence description: “Bro Plugins can be either compiled code, Bro scripts or a combination of both”. > and also with how we've used the term "plugin" > so far. The primary way we've used "plugin" so far is as a compiled, > binary extension. While indeed the structure also accommodates > script-only plugins, that does not warrant calling a set of scripts a > "plugin" in my view. Indeed I don't think most people even realize > that a plugin can be just scripts. But they are going to be become aware very soon, so isn’t it more awkward to try and continue obfuscating the truth of things? > So my vote goes to "package", "bro-pkg", and "Bro > Package Manager". The only way I’d be ok with “package” is if it completely replaces all uses of the term “plugin”. Otherwise, I think any other idea so far is better than packages. - Jon _______________________________________________ bro-dev mailing list bro-dev@bro.org http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev
