> On Jun 5, 2016, at 11:51 AM, Slagell, Adam J <slag...@illinois.edu> wrote: > > Regardless, it seems that you and Jon have irreconcilable differences that > eliminate plugin or package. And as the PI and implementer, I give high > weight to both of your opinions. Would either of you object to extensions? > > So while I *really* hate to do this, I will throw out bro-bee and Bro > Extensions for Everyone.
We haven’t had a lot of time to reconcile, but my stance is that it’s not logical to choose a project name that introduces ambiguity in the naming of the top-level containers it deals with. Some paths to move forward that I see: 1) revisit the design of what the top-level container is 2) use plugins as top-level container and project name that refers to plugins 3) use plugins as top-level container and project name that is totally unrelated to the container name 4) use plugins as top-level container, a project name that refers to them by a different name, and then suggest how docs should be written or re-organized to avoid ambiguity. I’m only being slightly facetious here, I really would need extra help/effort with guidelines for what term to use in what situations. e.g. is it ok to call it a “plugin” when referring directly to existing plugin docs, but I should use the other term otherwise? Seems better to avoid the extra effort and strain this path puts on maintaining consistent/clear docs. - Jon _______________________________________________ bro-dev mailing list bro-dev@bro.org http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev
