>I think we should instead just skip the "async" keyword altogether.
>Requiring it at some places, but not others, hurts more than it helps
>in my opinion.
This sounds fine to me. Given that Bro is inherently an asynchronous
language, it makes sense to for those semantics to trickle down to the
function call level. In my opinion, it's in line with user expectations:
processing is network-event driven. A function finishes when it has all
data it needs for its processing - whether being synchronous or
asynchronous.
On a separate note: for asynchronous operations to be truly useful, they
need to propagate to the lowest level. That concerns particularly file
I/O in addition to network I/O. Do you have any plans to go there as
well (perhaps later down the line)? I am asking because there's a
natural fit to do asynchronous file I/O with CAF. It just hasn't been
tackled yet.
Matthias
_______________________________________________
bro-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev
