as suggested.
From: Wireshark-dev [mailto:wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org] On Behalf Of
Roland Knall
Sent: 01 March 2018 10:27
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Dissector - plugin or built-in
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 11:22 AM, Graham Bloice
OK – I’ll take a look.
Best regards…Paul
From: Wireshark-dev [mailto:wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org] On Behalf Of
Pascal Quantin
Sent: 01 March 2018 10:24
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Dissector - plugin or built-in
Hi Paul,
Le 1 mars 2018 10:47
On 1 March 2018 at 10:27, Roland Knall wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 11:22 AM, Graham Bloice <
> graham.blo...@trihedral.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 1 March 2018 at 10:18, Roland Knall wrote:
>>
>>> We do not have any other dissector within the code, which dissects
>>> blocktypes. Therefore
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 11:22 AM, Graham Bloice
wrote:
>
>
> On 1 March 2018 at 10:18, Roland Knall wrote:
>
>> We do not have any other dissector within the code, which dissects
>> blocktypes. Therefore I would not be so sure, that it will get rejected (in
>> my book it definitely should not).
>
Hi Paul,
Le 1 mars 2018 10:47, "Paul Offord" a écrit :
Hi Pascal,
Thanks for your note regarding my change 26203 - https://code.wireshark.org/
review/#/c/26203/ . You suggested that I submit it as a built-in
dissector, not a plugin. I’m not keen for two reasons:
- If it is rejected (a
On 1 March 2018 at 10:18, Roland Knall wrote:
> We do not have any other dissector within the code, which dissects
> blocktypes. Therefore I would not be so sure, that it will get rejected (in
> my book it definitely should not).
>
> But it most likely will get rejected as a plugin.
>
> Main reas
We do not have any other dissector within the code, which dissects
blocktypes. Therefore I would not be so sure, that it will get rejected (in
my book it definitely should not).
But it most likely will get rejected as a plugin.
Main reasons for built-in:
- Easier to maintain
- Best-practice appr
Hi Pascal,
Thanks for your note regarding my change 26203 -
https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/26203/ . You suggested that I submit it
as a built-in dissector, not a plugin. I'm not keen for two reasons:
* If it is rejected (and I have a feeling it will be), I'll then have to
rewrite
