Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c
From: "Sultan, Hassan via Wireshark-dev" <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 19:53:10 +0000
One thing we could do rather than create more fields is to keep the fields as-is, but find a way to store in the header_field_info structure attached to the field the original type & encoding (meaning : what the field actually is on the wire). The current field_info seems to properly represent length & offset (at least for the cases in http), so really the important stuff missing is data type & encoding. Storing that in the header_field_info would limit the memory consumption increase as well since it wouldn't grow with the # of frames parsed. Thanks, Hassan
-----Original Message----- From: Jaap Keuter [mailto:jaap.keuter () xs4all nl] Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2017 5:43 AM To: Developer support list for Wireshark <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Cc: Sultan, Hassan <sultah () amazon com> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Hi all, I remember a similar discussion around the Contents-Length header some years ago. Can’t we make a similar solution here? Then everyone will be happy and we have a backwards compatible solution. Thanks, JaapOn 13 Jul 2017, at 22:41, Sultan, Hassan via Wireshark-dev <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> wrote:As Eric explained, having the HTTP response code as a number simply gives you much more advantages (filtering, comparisons, inequalities...) than having it in text. So this is clearly not a bug as it was doneon purpose.I agree it's not a bug. For the existing purpose of Wireshark it does the job. Itjust makes some other use-cases a bit more difficult.
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c, (continued)
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Sultan, Hassan via Wireshark-dev (Jul 13)
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Pascal Quantin (Jul 13)
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Sultan, Hassan via Wireshark-dev (Jul 13)
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Pascal Quantin (Jul 13)
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Sultan, Hassan via Wireshark-dev (Jul 13)
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Erik de Jong (Jul 13)
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Sultan, Hassan via Wireshark-dev (Jul 13)
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Pascal Quantin (Jul 13)
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Sultan, Hassan via Wireshark-dev (Jul 13)
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Jaap Keuter (Jul 15)
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Sultan, Hassan via Wireshark-dev (Jul 17)
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Anders Broman (Jul 17)
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Guy Harris (Jul 17)
- Re: hf_http_response_code in packet-http.c Sultan, Hassan via Wireshark-dev (Jul 13)