> On Jun 6, 2016, at 10:46 PM, Robin Sommer <[email protected]> wrote: > > So sounds like this proposal is something you can agree with?
Yes. > > 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. Ack. >> 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. Yeah, I’m not seeing specific problems thinking about it more now. > 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. I’d appreciate if anyone would think a bit about whether “package” still actually makes sense to use in the current context and doesn’t actually need a rename. My point about a package being something that can both require metadata and not require metadata might be clear enough to explain based on context? E.g. From Bro/BroControl’s point of a view packages don’t require metadata. From the package manager tool’s perspective, packages require metadata. Seems like obvious/expected behavior from user’s view and not ambiguous? - Jon _______________________________________________ bro-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev
