Re: Some questions about the "option block" interface in libwiretap

[Michael Mann <mmann78 () netscape net>]

Not if we can get then into 2.2 in time.
 
It seems like the bugs that were created by the first refactoring have been fixed, so maybe its time to think about the 
next layer.  When I was last working on it my big concern was option "datatypes".  The existing blocks that were 
refactored didn't have too much variety and were mostly strings and integers which was easy enough to handle.  It seems 
like a generic solution would involve something like what we have with ftypes (registering datatypes with their 
handlers) and that seemed like a lot of work.  Maybe now is the time to discuss alternate ideas?

 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Guy Harris <guy () alum mit edu>
To: Developer support list for Wireshark <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Sent: Mon, May 16, 2016 2:06 pm
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Some questions about the "option block" interface in libwiretap

So we'll probably be making incompatible API changes to the libwiretap code in future releases, such as 2.4.0, to 
handle some of these issues.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe