Thanks for the answer. To be honest, I did NOT know the LUA dissector !
The LUA example given into the wireshark documentation seems effectively a little bit complicated compared to a simple descritpion. So I will not make a better answer. Olivier Guy Harris a écrit : > On Nov 12, 2008, at 2:01 PM, Jaap Keuter wrote: > > >> How does this compare to LUA? >> > > 1) it works even if Wireshark isn't built with Lua > > 2) more importantly, it's a *descriptive* language, not an > *imperative* language - you don't write code to dissect the packet, > you write a description of what the packets look like, so presumably > it's easier to write and harder to get wrong. > _______________________________________________ > Wireshark-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev > > > _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list [email protected] https://wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
