Hi, I'm not sure if we want to convert all plugins to builtin ones but the asn1 plugin should stay as a plugin and I would think at least one more simple one as a plugin example.
More comments any one? Regards Anders ________________________________ From: wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org [mailto:wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org] On Behalf Of mman...@netscape.net Sent: den 19 juni 2011 16:59 To: wireshark-dev@wireshark.org Subject: [Wireshark-dev] plugins to builtins Why would a plugin dissector ever be better than a builtin? I see "development speed" mentioned as a plus, but isn't the lack of "platform independent code" a much greater detriment? Is there any reason why the current plugins couldn't be converted to built-in dissectors? I dove in and converted some of the simpler ones (thanks to Anders for the integration), but before I try and tackle the harder ones, I wanted to make sure there wasn't something I'm missing about the process. To me it mostly looks like files need to be moved and makefiles need to be modified. Not a hard task, but a somewhat tedious. So far the only issue I've seen is that some of the "more complex" plug-ins have "subdissectors" each in there own file, but usually not that much code. As Roland noted in https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5990#c2, there is understandably some desire to keep the number of dissector files to a minimum. Does that just turn into "developer preference"? Mike Mann
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
