[Discussion] Plug-Ins

[Matt Jonkman]

I third that, loadable plugins would definitely make the compile and
customization process MUCH easier than preprocessors and all.

Matt

Martin Fong wrote:
> Victor,
> 
>>>  I'd like to a have a plug-in architecture that simply/only uses
>>>  dynamic libraries and configuration files (-- I've _never_ been
>>>  happy with the compile-it-into-the-code-base model).
>>
>>  Yeah, this is something I want as well. I wonder how far we should
>>  take this though: detection modules only, or also output, decoding,
>>  pattern matcher, packet sources (libpcap, ip_queue, etc), etc?
> 
> I vote for all of them.  This would eliminate the fragility associated
> with patching configure[,.in] and Makefile[.ac,.in] scripts (which are
> highly subject to the versions of autoconf and automake), and it's
> inexpensive, because address reconciliation is only done once.
> 
>      Cheers!
> 
>      ...Martin
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion at openinfosecfoundation.org
> http://lists.openinfosecfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

-- 
--------------------------------------------
Matthew Jonkman
Emerging Threats
Phone 765-429-0398
Fax 312-264-0205
http://www.emergingthreats.net
--------------------------------------------

PGP: http://www.jonkmans.com/mattjonkman.asc