Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: BASE_CUSTOM and 64-bit values
From: Evan Huus <eapache () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 19:02:51 -0400
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Guy Harris <guy () alum mit edu> wrote:
On Mar 26, 2013, at 10:31 AM, Evan Huus <eapache () gmail com> wrote:I'm not 100% convinced we should though - it would be more flexible, but we'd be exposing some of the guts of the dissection backend into 'userspace' as it were. Not a particular strong objection, but something to keep in mind.I'm not sure that field values should be thought of as an internal detail; I could see some language bindings, for example, wanting to translate field values into values in the language, and I could see taps wanting to request the values of specific named fields and getting them as fvalue_t's.
I'm not sure language bindings really count, since they'll potentially need access to internal details for other reasons. Taps are a good point though. Perhaps fvalue_t's are better thought of just as the 'advanced' API for uncommon uses.
I *do* see the definition of a string value changing in the future (to support embedded NULs, strings whose binary representation is not valid in the encoding in question, etc.), so I don't want the current fvalue_t exposed as an unchanging structure, but we're currently not guaranteeing source or binary compatibility for plugins or code using libwireshark between major versions.
I expect we will never guarantee compatibility between major versions - that's part of what major versions are for, after all. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- BASE_CUSTOM and 64-bit values David Arnold (Mar 14)
- Re: BASE_CUSTOM and 64-bit values Guy Harris (Mar 14)
- Re: BASE_CUSTOM and 64-bit values David Arnold (Mar 14)
- Re: BASE_CUSTOM and 64-bit values Guy Harris (Mar 14)
- Re: BASE_CUSTOM and 64-bit values David Arnold (Mar 17)
- Re: BASE_CUSTOM and 64-bit values Jeff Morriss (Mar 25)
- Re: BASE_CUSTOM and 64-bit values David Arnold (Mar 26)
- Re: BASE_CUSTOM and 64-bit values Jakub Zawadzki (Mar 26)
- Re: BASE_CUSTOM and 64-bit values Evan Huus (Mar 26)
- Re: BASE_CUSTOM and 64-bit values Guy Harris (Mar 26)
- Re: BASE_CUSTOM and 64-bit values Evan Huus (Mar 26)
- Re: BASE_CUSTOM and 64-bit values David Arnold (Mar 14)
- Re: BASE_CUSTOM and 64-bit values Guy Harris (Mar 14)