On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:59:57 -0500
Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at Sun.COM> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:57:25AM -0700, Michael Hunter wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 13:26:27 -0500
> > Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at Sun.COM> wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> 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?
I guess this is really an issue for the EOF of snoop although I would
hope we would understand most of the issues behind that sooner rather
then later. If you are going to say that the interface for enhancing
wireshark when there is disagreement between Sun and the wireshark
community is the plugin interface then I think that needs to be stable.
I'd be happy with somebody saying they were reasonable hooked into the
wireshark community and thought it was a viable community with good
direciton and leadership. Its been 1/2 a decade or so since I poked
around the etheral community and I was never more then slightly
interested.
mph
