On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:31 AM, Evan Huus <eapa...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not 100% convinced we should though - it would be more flexible, > but we'd be exposing some of the guts of the dissection backend into > 'userspace' as it were. Not a particular strong objection, but > something to keep in mind.
I'm not sure that field values should be thought of as an internal detail; I could see some language bindings, for example, wanting to translate field values into values in the language, and I could see taps wanting to request the values of specific named fields and getting them as fvalue_t's. I *do* see the definition of a string value changing in the future (to support embedded NULs, strings whose binary representation is not valid in the encoding in question, etc.), so I don't want the current fvalue_t exposed as an unchanging structure, but we're currently not guaranteeing source or binary compatibility for plugins or code using libwireshark between major versions. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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
