Hmm, I did briefly think that if we ever moved all dissectors into plug-in form (which would be unlikely, given the drive to make as many built-in as possible), we could package them according to protocol family/purpose, so that users could select only the ones that were necessary - but many have complex interdependencies; and there's always going to be a number of people who'll complain if they can't find an obscure dissector in their installation.
That said, one of the appeals of Wireshark to me is that it "only does everything" (to steal Sony's slogan); and that the current licencing/project maintenance arrangements encourage people to contribute new dissectors/features (even if not everything gets accepted 100% of the time), and participate in their maintenance - so that everyone receives a better product in the long term.
(I'm not opposed to the implementation of new mechanisms that potentially make it easier to enhance, and extend Wireshark, though).
Just my 0.02p,
Tyson.
2012/7/25 Guy Harris
<guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Jul 24, 2012, at 1:23 PM, Jakub Zawadzki wrote:
> From my perspective: I really use ~ 20 dissectors, why I need all of them?
...and if they're loaded at startup time and either interpreted or translated after being loaded, it might be easier to choose a subset of protocols (NetMon lets you do that, although I don't remember whether you can specify an arbitrary subset or if they just let you choose from subsets they've defined).
--
Fight Internet Censorship!
http://www.eff.orghttp://vmlemon.wordpress.com | Twitter/FriendFeed/Skype: vmlemon | 00447934365844
