> That must have been me. :-) I need to look at that for a bit to see if
> I can remember my reasoning from many years ago (which might very well
> have been flawed!). Please file a ticket with your thoughts and assign
> it to me. Thanks,
I have created BIT-1631 but couldn't assign it to you.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 02:35 +0200, you wrote:
> The thing is I don't get why reads only need to be propagated once per
> (half) _expire interval
> Seems someone put some thought into this so maybe I miss something
> here :)
That must have been me. :-) I need to look at that for a bit to see
>> A side note: I suspect that the table syncing did and still does not
>> work as reliable as one would expect. But according to Johanna this will
>> become deprecated soon, so I did not touch that code.
>
> If there's any obvious problem, we should still take a look, but more
> generally: yeah
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 21:41 +0200, you wrote:
> A side note: I suspect that the table syncing did and still does not
> work as reliable as one would expect. But according to Johanna this will
> become deprecated soon, so I did not touch that code.
If there's any obvious problem, we should
On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 15:36 +0200, you wrote:
> I will have a look. If I am able to fix this I will include this in the
> pull request for the intel updates.
Please create a separate pull request for this one first (you can
merge it into the intel update branch, that'll be fine).
>
> I'd call this a bug actually. Redefs are supposed to take effect
> before anything else, so having the timeout use the original value
> here seems quite wrong.
I agree that the behavior is at least counterintuitive :)
> My immediate thought (without looking at the code) would be delaying
>
HI Jan,
> > A solution could be to evaluate the interval expression every time it is
> > used inside the table implementation. The drawback would be that there
For all of my needs above has worked fairly well. including using exp_val= 0
secs as default.
Based on the value of item in the
As there was no feedback, I decided to use a bif (see
https://github.com/bro/bro/commit/16b1032beeaaf681763785ddac1eed4128430965).
It might not be the cleanest solution with respect to the bro language
but it is a straight forward approach.
___
bro-dev
My explanations might be hard to follow without examples. So I am adding
some pseudo code:
> I ran into an issue while trying to make the _expire interval
> configurable: Using a redefable constant does not work here, as the
> expression only gets evaluated when the table is initialized and thus
Hi,
I ran into an issue while trying to make the _expire interval
configurable: Using a redefable constant does not work here, as the
expression only gets evaluated when the table is initialized and thus
later redefs do not influence the value. I thought about circumventing
this by setting the
10 matches
Mail list logo
