On Jun 20, 2013, at 11:54 AM, Evan Huus <eapache@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 3. Create a separate application called Fileshark that doesn't use
> wiretap and links only against libfiledissectors. When dissecting
> files directly, wiretap simply gets in the way. Additionally, people
> have pointed out several possible UI changes that make sense for files
> but not for packets. While hopefully Fileshark and Wireshark will be
> able to share much of their code, there are still places where they
> will diverge and we want to be able to do that cleanly.
Yes. For example, in Fileshark, you either:
1) might want to show, in a summary pane, multiple items for multiple sections/records/etc. of a file
or
2) show only one pane, a detail pane, so that with everything closed up, you have a list of sections/records/etc..
> Some of the consequences of this:
> - Wireshark proper will not open non-capture files directly. It will
> parse files it sees over transport protocols, but to parse an on-disk
> file directly will require opening it in Fileshark.
Note, BTW, that you might well want to have file dissectors for various forms of capture files that Wireshark can read; if you open those files in Wireshark, they'd show you the packets (and perhaps other records), but if you open them in Fileshark, they'd show you the file header (if there is one) and the file records (including the raw contents of record headers, etc.) - that might be a useful tool for Wireshark developers reverse-engineering features of not-publicly-documented file formats.
