On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 07:23:07PM -0700, Guy Harris wrote:
>
> On May 16, 2007, at 7:09 PM, Stephen Fisher wrote:
>
> > What are other's thoughts on this?
>
> If there were some way we could have the Wireshark core provide an
> index of some sort, e.g. in the packet_info structure, the routines
> could take a packet_info * rather than a frame_data * as an argument
> (we could just change the existing uses, rather than adding new
> routines), and the dissector wouldn't have to provide the index
> itself.
This would be a more transparent solution, however it would break the
API. Do we care about breaking the API for people with custom code that
we don't know about (that isn't committed into Wireshark)? If it's ok
to change it, I see no reason not to.
Steve
