On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 11:45:57PM +0200, M??she Van der Sterre wrote: > As far as I know this dissector conforms to the usual way things are > done with wireshark. But I like to hear about anything I missed, or > should have done another way.
With only a quick glance, I noticed some C++ style comments (//) in there that need to be changed to C style (/* */). Could you send an updated patch with this fixed and that includes the correction you made in a follow-up e-mail to this one on the 16th. > This dissector currently has all the features the current > (packet-ib.c) dissector has, so replacing it right away should not be > a problem. I'm not familar with packet-ib, so excuse my ignorance. Is there any reason that packet-ib couldn't be updated instead of replacing it? What else does your dissector cover that packet-ib didn't? > I hope to implement the other opcodes soon, most of the work is > already done. But I have still to look at ways to generate (correct) > packages for some (those not or ralely used by the current firebird > package). Extensive testing with invalid packages is also on the todo > list. Great! Steve _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
