On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 03:04:57PM -0800, John Myers wrote: > >You either have 1 big plugin, which may as well be EvalTests, or you have > >many plugins, one for each function. The current split is somewhere in the > >middle where I tried grouping semi-related functions together by rule type. > > > One big plugin would be better than the current split. The current > split has no solid technical rationale behind it.
Ok, so I'm getting back to wanting to finish off this branch, so we need to come up with a plan. There's a number of benefits of getting rid of EvalTests: - cleans up PerMsgStatus. EvalTests is simply a module that keeps the rule code out of the PMS module, but it's all in the same package/namespace. - moving from test plugin to standard eval rule is easier. no converting between plugin and eval parameters, etc. - standardize eval rules to be plugins. also, this brings us closer to the engine/rules split that we've been working towards. - allows eval rules to not be loaded. arguably, most of them will always be enabled, but some could be disabled. DNSEval, for instance, is only useful in net mode. If you're going to run in local-only mode, drop off the eval tests that require DNS. So I'd like to get some consensus about whether or not we want to persue this or if the branch should just be deleted and that's that. Thoughts? -- Randomly Generated Tagline: "Good news, good news abounds." - Prof. Branche
pgpPZOV20ru1l.pgp
Description: PGP signature
