On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:26:27 -0500
Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at Sun.COM> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:22:01AM -0700, Michael Hunter wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:09:11 -0400
> > Wyllys Ingersoll <Wyllys.Ingersoll at Sun.COM> wrote:
> > > I also don't see the logic behind forcing the wireshark
> > > project to address the missing functionality in snoop.
> >
> > I don't either. But I would like to see a statement about the
> > wireshark community and maintainers and how easy it is estimated to be
> > to get them to accept patches. Its not an architectural concern. But
> > the cost of long term maintenance should effect which of the two we put
> > effort into.
>
> Or for us to simply ship any plug-ins not accepted by the Wireshark
> community.
I didn't agree with your (?) request earlier in this thread to ARC that
interface as it seems like more of an impediment then necessary to the
integration of wireshark. But if this is the answer then that is
needed.
mph
