On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, ronnie sahlberg wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 14:15:45 +0100 (CET), Jaap Keuter
> <jaap.keuter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sat, 5 Mar 2005, ronnie sahlberg wrote:
> >
> > > do we need plugin support? it is a serious question.
> >
> > Serious answer: Yes
> >
> > [rant deleted]
> > > end of rant.
> >
> > I think we shoudn't underestimate the use of the plugin model for
> > not-for-public dissectors and quick dissector development.
> > Private dissectors may be restricted from distribution (proprietary
> > protocols, linked to NDA's). So it may be unacceptable to build them into
> > installers, which may leak more easily, since they look like stock
> > Ethereal installers. The model is that stock installers are distributed
> > around, while the private dissectors are added to a lab installation only.
> > Dissector development based on the plugin model makes it:
>
> I understand fully well that some protocol dissectors can not/should
> not go into ethereal for various reasons.
> I frequently use several such protocols and dissectors myself.
>
> The question was not regarding whether ethereal should allow/disallow
> such dissectors, far from it.
> The question was based on my personal observation that the plugin
> interface has currently failed to make this possible.
>
> In my experience, many maintainers of out-of-tree protocols seem to
> prefer to just make a special build about once a year or so with the
Once a year?!? That's like prehistoric. Oke, we're using a lot of the VoIP
related features, which improve every release, so we upgrade just about
every release. We've hit only a few bump in the road for the plugins we
use.
> out-of-tree dissector built in as a normal dissector, then the full
> version of ethereal with this special dissector built in is
> distributed to the lab.
A full version is what we try to avoid. A stock version for everyone,
special dissectors in plugins for the lab.
> If my observations from my exposure to this limited subset of all
> out-of-tree dissectors that exists are invalid or not the norm, then
> ok.
> Othervise, if my experiences are the norm, then why bother with a
> plugin interface if the out-of-tree dissector maintainers arent
> bothering with it either?
>
> Are the out-of-tree maintainers using the plugin api?
> The ones i use are not using the plugin api.
The ones I use (and maintain) do use the plugin API.
So, it all comes down to a majority vote then. But how are we gonna get
it? This list is not the way to poll, the wiki maybe?
Regards,
Jaap
