On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 08:28 -0800, you wrote:
> If we provided operator bool() for statuses, then it would be true for > peer_added, peer_removed_, peer_recovered, and false for all others. > This selection seems arguable to me, which is why I'm inclined to let > users probe for specific instances themselves. I see the challenge but I think we need some way to differentiate serious errors from expected updates, otherwise we're back at writing switch statements that need to comprehensively list all cases. One can always post-filter if, e.g., one does consider status X not an error even though it's flagged as such. Instead of a binary error yes/no, what about levels along these lines: (1) Error: *we* did something seriously wrong; (2) Warning: something's seems off, including problems with peers; and (3) Info: just an update on activity. It's not clear-cut of course but it would still be good to have some default classification for cases that one doesn't handle directly (and if it's only for then logging as error/warning/info). One could then also compare the level directly with the status object: "if ( status == ERROR ) ..." 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
