So sounds like this proposal is something you can agree with? On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 02:01 +0000, you wrote:
> So scripts do not autoload, but plugins do? Thinking more about that I would answer: yes. Going back to the principle of least surprise, this is how it is now as well: scripts need to be loaded, plugins load automatically. I suggest we start like that, we can always add an auto-load mechanism later if it turns out that would be useful. > And if the process isn’t the same in both cases, is that also in > conflict w/ the goal of a developer being able to promote a > script-only thing into a binary plugin without users noticing? Isn't that more about moving some functionality, like bifs? I don't think a plugin would replace the scripts completely. > To mock up example documentation: I like this, with the one note that most likely they won't need to fill out any additional meta data fields in (2) and (3) because the defaults will do. > That all looks consistent except part (2) ends up pointing people > toward existing docs/examples that reference “package” but with a > different meaning. I'd need a decision to be made about how/whether > to change that. Ok, then let's rename "package" in the current docs. I propose "module" as the replacement: it's not quite right regarding the language's module concept but close enough I would say. > naming the project/client/containers My vote: Bro Package Manager, bro-pkgs, package. Robin -- Robin Sommer * ICSI/LBNL * [email protected] * www.icir.org/robin _______________________________________________ bro-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev
