On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 17:25 +0000, you wrote:
> On the exception that someone can come up w/ a longer list of > convincing problems regarding the use of “plugin” :) Sorry, I have to keep the discussion going by objecting. :-) I really don't like calling these things "plugins", nor calling the whole thing the "plugin manager". I'm with Jan here: I think that would be quite misleading in terms of what I believe people associate with "plugin" normally and also with how we've used the term "plugin" so far. The primary way we've used "plugin" so far is as a compiled, binary extension. While indeed the structure also accommodates script-only plugins, that does not warrant calling a set of scripts a "plugin" in my view. Indeed I don't think most people even realize that a plugin can be just scripts. In contrast, "package" is much more generic and can therefore better accomodate a range of things without becoming confusing (it's fuzzy to begin with :) So my vote goes to "package", "bro-pkg", and "Bro Package Manager". We could then also start calling the script-only things "modules", which aligns with what the scripting language already does with its namespaces (and in fact I'm often using "module" in that way already). So a "package" would then contain script "modules" and/or binary "plugins" My second choice would be using "bundle" instead of "package", and then I guess "bro-bundle" "Bro Bundle Manager". We're introducing something new here, so it would make sense to use a new term, "bundle". Robin -- Robin Sommer * ICSI/LBNL * [email protected] * www.icir.org/robin _______________________________________________ bro-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev
