Nicolas Williams writes:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:57:25AM -0700, Michael Hunter wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I don't understand. Why can't we ship Wireshark with any plug-in
> interface (does it have one) marked as Volatile? How is that worse than
> not shipping it, or not shipping Wireshark at all?
We're potentially creating fun for future project teams:
ARC: You should ship a protocol decoder so that administrators
can debug problems.
Team: good idea! We'll update snoop.
ARC: No, don't do that. Snoop is dead. Ship a Wireshark
module.
Team: great! We'll add that module to our delivery.
ARC: No, you can't do that, either. The interfaces you must
depend on are all Volatile and controlled by an external
entity, so your module won't necessarily work past the next
patch.
Team: uh ... ok ... so what were we talking about again?
It potentially works for the code that swims upstream to the Matrix
Mainframe, but perhaps not so cool for others.
(I'm actually not so concerned about this as I am with the disconnect
between snoop maintenance and wireshark. I want wireshark, but I also
want a commitment to it, rather than a drive-by integration. Is that
simply asking too much?)
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
