Yes, performance is very important to my applications. Jens.
> Hi > > I'm also using the packet API instead of pcap. The reason for Jens might be > (for me it is) performance. The more API layers it has to go through, the > slower the code. This is critical for low usage CPU (background) > applications that must capture live traffic, with repetitive calls to e.g. > PacketReceivePacket( ). > It is a fact that one must cope with the NPF_ and Packet_ , and the > ASCII/Unicode in PacketGetAdapterNames( ) stuff... and the > PacketGetVersion( ) format changes...but that's life. > > Keep up the good work with Winpcap! Namely WAN support ! > Pedro Lucas > > > Why don't to migrate to the pcap API? I know this would be a big change > for > > your code, but the pcap API is more stable, while the packet API is > subject > > to change from time to time (in fact I suppose you had to modify some > stuff > > in your code to work with 3.1 beta, in particular regarding the > > PacketGetAdapterNames() API). > > > > Have a nice day > > GV > > > > > > ================================================================== > This is the WinPcap users list. It is archived at > http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ > > To unsubscribe use > mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ================================================================== > ================================================================== This is the WinPcap users list. It is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To unsubscribe use mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ==================================================================
