> On Oct 23, 2014, at 5:20 PM, Robin Sommer <[email protected]> wrote: > > What I meant was ensuring the two stay in sync. Say if we added a new > capability to C++, can we trigger somehow a test failure if we forget > to add it to C?
Don’t have any ideas for how to do that at the moment, but, yes, it would be nice to have that type of coverage test. > I was imagining for 2.4 we'd leave the BroControl parts in place as > they are now, i.e., using the old comm framework. Were you planing to > replace that already? Yeah, I was thinking the user would be given a binary choice: either everything uses new comm or everything uses old comm. But I guess it also works to say old comm is still available for everything it used to be, but additionally/concurrently there’s the option of trying the new comm for tasks related to A, B, and C. I’m not sure what approach I like best, but may make sense to go in to the integration process with the intent of just making incremental additions and then see how far we get. - Jon _______________________________________________ bro-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev
