> On Jun 4, 2016, at 11:27 AM, Slagell, Adam J <slag...@illinois.edu> wrote:
>
> I still strongly disagree with ALL metadata being optional, unless it is
> automatically cleaned up if they never “finish” putting in required data.
Sorry, I was just talking about in terms of interoperability w/ the client: all
metadata is optional and doesn’t magically turn a plugin into something else
that can now work with it. A goal for repository submissions is to have some
quality checks in place to enforce some minimum metadata to be there.
> I am fine giving preference to the plugin naming because it does require the
> least amount of changes in current naming conventions.
Right, but just to succinctly summarize all the reasons that I think point
toward any form of “package” being used for this project as a poor choice:
- it's too generic and not useful in describing what it is/does (in
contrast to “plugin”)
- it would create another term for what is already named a “plugin”.
Having two words for the same thing isn’t optimal.
- the term is already in use within Bro for script packages
- it's also already overloaded based on other contexts (e.g. binary
packages)
> I will leave it open this weekend for members of the project leadership to
> jump in if they want, but otherwise let’s go with Bro Plugin Manager (BPM)
> and bro-bpm.
Yes, I’d go with that, too.
On the exception that someone can come up w/ a longer list of convincing
problems regarding the use of “plugin” :)
- Jon
_______________________________________________
bro-dev mailing list
bro-dev@bro.org
http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev
