http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1903
------- Comment #3 from stephen.d.croll@xxxxxxxxx 2007-10-09 10:25 GMT -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> Could you merge wimaxasncp_dict.[lh] and diameter_dict.[lh]?
>
Technically, I suppose it's possible. It might be rather messy
though. Some thoughts:
o The only high-level tag commonality is <dictionary> and <enum>.
o There's a difference in terminology between the protocols. Diameter
has <avp>, wimaxasncp has <tlv>. An <avp> 'code' attribute is
equivalent to a <tlv> 'type' attribute. Diameter has <grouped>,
wimaxasncp nothing (actually compound, but not expressed in the
current version of the XML).
o Diameter has <base>, <command>, <typedefn>, <application>, all which
have no meaning in wimaxasncp.
o Separating the protocols by DTDs would not work as the lexers don't
do validation. Perhaps separating the protocols by states would be
a solution. Something along the lines of <diameter-dictionary> and
<wimaxasncp-dictionary>.
o Resultant data structures and the functions that operate on them
would not likely be common, other than possibly for enum.
o Overall maintenance might be made significantly more difficult.
Adding a new feature to one of the protocols would likely require
some level of knowledge of both protocols. Certainly co-compilation
and testing would need to be done for both protocols to ensure no
inadvertent breakage.
o My submission is really only a step towards a more functional
wimaxasncp dissector and not necessarily close to anything like a
final version. More work will likely go into it, resulting in
additions or modifications of the XML description. This is
presuming that it's not completely replaced by something
better/different.
Comments?
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
