Uhhh yeah so actually its the proc itself that calls the method and the proc itself will be executed inside a different namespace than Metasploit::Framework::LoginScanner::HTTP I think (since your return the proc). Its not until the <proc name>.call() function is called that this actually executes so the method isn't called at this point.

Your also missing the code snippet where you actually make this call.

Uhhh I think only one option does this proc functionality not all of them? You also just stated they only return the value of the respective datastore options so this is a contradiction at the very least.

Specify the namespace here otherwise this is confusing given your previous line.

Excess word, remove.

This could be confusing since its ambiguous if this might be a scanner module, or an auxiliary/gather module. Best to include the full path to the module here.

This is way too wordy and confusing. Please reword this to be clearer and more succinct. You seem to be trying to express 3 ideas at once here vs focusing on the one important idea.

Sorry couldn't highlight the entire quote but this applies to the entire quote.

module

Should look at changing the configuration of this caption text in your posts to be smaller. Its bigger than the main text of the article which is odd.

on

This would be more appropriate here.

Technically these are datastore options not register options. Should also clarify that by Metasploit codebase you mean the Metasploit:: and Msf:: namespaces or otherwise specify which specific namespaces you are referring to since that is the topic of discussion here.

The relationship here isn't explained well. You lack the explanation of the datastore and how that can only be accessed from the Metasploit:: namespace.

Rex:: being the top layer, Msf:: being the bottom layer, and Metasploit:: in the intermediate part.

This is a list format as it contains 3 or more items you are describing. Don't use multiple "and" in this case. Instead separate list items with commas with the last element starting with ", and"

This would have solved

This is past tense here I would think?

Can remove this word.

This feels like a repeat of information. Perhaps this note can be moved into the conclusion and your explanation line of the HTTP-Trace feature not working also included?

I feel like the Conclusion is missing that explanation whilst the Note is good but doesn't explain your future plans.

For what purpose? Should reiterate the goal here otherwise you saying your doing a piece of work and my next reaction is "okay but why". Keep in minder the reader may forget points as they go along so having these explanations at hand helps make your text easier to read vs them having to now go back, find the paragraph where you explained why this concept was needed, and then reread.

You often hear people say that certain books are hard to read. This can be one of the reasons why people might state this.

See above point about scanner types/implementations. Seems like this is what you were trying to go for here but you only start discussing different implementation styles at the very end here instead of discussing how the two examples about are each their own unique style of implementation of a login scanner.

These are just two examples. And I don't see any groupings of types of Login Scanners here. So its hard for me to take these two examples as representative of all the login scanners in Metasploit without this contextual information r.e the different login scanner types/implementations that is missing here.

Remove word, it isn't needed.

Remove, this isn't needed and is confusing.

This looks like a greater than sign vs an arrow.

It may be better to separate this into a code section with indentation to better show the class heirarchy and what relies on what.

We could also use arrows with --> but personally I would say that is also confusing as to what inherits what without further text explaining things.

See it....where exactly? Its not in this page. As a reader who is reading your blog you should always try to assume your reader has not read your previous articles where possible, and where this is required, always link to the previous article at the top of your blog post and ideally discuss what was covered in that blog post. This will make it easier for users to find the information they are after and reference topics they might need to fill in their knowledge on.

Actually technically speaking its sending the proc so that Msf namespace does the work on its behalf thus preventing the namespace issues. You haven't really explained it this well by this point and so you likely will want to clarify this point here.

quite different.