Re: Dissector - plugin or built-in

[Pascal Quantin <pascal.quantin () gmail com>]

Hi Paul,

Le 1 mars 2018 10:47, "Paul Offord" <Paul.Offord () advance7 com> a écrit :

Hi Pascal,



Thanks for your note regarding my change 26203 - https://code.wireshark.org/
review/#/c/26203/ .  You suggested that I submit it as a built-in
dissector, not a plugin.  I’m not keen for two reasons:



   - If it is rejected (and I have a feeling it will be), I’ll then have to
   rewrite it to offer as an optional plugin
   - I think adding it as a built-in dissector means changes to core
   Wireshark code



Why do you think it should be a built-in dissector?

Because :
- we do not want to end with tons of plugins to support, that are heavier
than built-in ones (startup time, more files to install,...)
- our policy is to add new dissectors as built-in, not plugins (we are even
converting some old plugins to built-in)

Plugins are usually used for people not willing to submit code to Wireshark
upstream. This is not your case, so you should really convert it to
built-in (which is a 5 mn work or even less).

Best regards,
Pascal.

___________________________________________________________________________
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