Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: plugins to builtins
From: Roland Knall <rknall () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 07:36:22 +0200
Hi Personally, I would prefer changing more or all plugins into built-in dissectors. It would help those dissectors, who have to use functionality only provided by a plug-in, as the whole openSAFETY-SercosIII mix-up showed. My next favorite would be the ProfiNet plug-in. If no one else would like to do it, I will make the necessary changes and send in a patch. I will follow Michael Mann's route with the SercosIII plugin in this case, first compiling everything together into one, and then moving the code. kind regards, Roland On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Anders Broman <anders.broman () ericsson com> wrote:
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
___________________________________________________________________________ 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
Current thread:
- plugins to builtins mmann78 (Jun 19)
- Re: plugins to builtins Anders Broman (Jun 19)
- Re: plugins to builtins Roland Knall (Jun 19)
- Re: plugins to builtins Jaap Keuter (Jun 20)
- Re: plugins to builtins Roland Knall (Jun 20)
- Re: plugins to builtins Jaap Keuter (Jun 20)
- Re: plugins to builtins Roland Knall (Jun 19)
- Re: plugins to builtins Anders Broman (Jun 19)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: plugins to builtins mmann78 (Jun 20)
- Re: plugins to builtins Ulf Lamping (Jun 20)
- Re: plugins to builtins Roland Knall (Jun 20)
- Re: plugins to builtins Ulf Lamping (Jun 20)
- Re: plugins to builtins Roland Knall (Jun 21)
- Re: plugins to builtins Ulf Lamping (Jun 21)
- Re: plugins to builtins Ulf Lamping (Jun 20)
- Re: plugins to builtins Andreas (Jun 20)