On Apr 22, 2013, at 11:48 AM, "Siwek, Jonathan Luke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yeah, that might be fine. Do you have an opinion, Seth (I thought you did > when we talked about the loss of directionality before) ? I think we had discussed creating an enums values to represent each location for files. For example: HTTP::FILE_CLIENT HTTP::FILE_SERVER SMTP::FILE_ENTITY FTP::FILE_ENTITY SSL::FILE_CLIENT_CERT SSL::FILE_SERVER_CERT This would give the directionality while leaving the possibility for protocols to have multiple transport mechanisms. PROTO::FILE_CLIENT_WRITE_METHOD1 PROTO::FILE_CLIENT_WRITE_METHOD2 PROTO::FILE_CLIENT_READ_METHOD2 Do you think we need to go that far or do you think that directionality alone is enough? I'm also not completely sure how this should be conveyed since I don't think it should be an argument to file_new since file_new is used for files read off disk or extracted from other files (child files). Perhaps it should just be a field in the fa_file record? .Seth -- Seth Hall International Computer Science Institute (Bro) because everyone has a network http://www.bro.org/ _______________________________________________ bro-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev
