Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] plugins to builtins
From: Roland Knall <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 07:36:22 +0200

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,

On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Anders Broman
<[email protected]> 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: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
> [email protected]
> Sent: den 19 juni 2011 16:59
> To: [email protected]
> 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 <[email protected]>
> Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>             mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe