Re: plugins to builtins

[Anders Broman <anders.broman () ericsson com>]

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-bounces () wireshark org [mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces () wireshark org] On Behalf Of mmann78 () 
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-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe