There should be a way to refactor such that the hf_ fields are parameters, so that each user (ssl, dtls, etc) gets their own set of filter names.
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Dirk Jagdmann <[email protected]> wrote: >> I am writing this to the mailing list to get some opinions if this is >> the right approach for this problem or if it should stay like it is now. >> If I get positive feedback I will try to make dtls use more code from >> the ssl dissector. > > The DTLS code was created from a copy of the SSL code some day in the past. > It's > true that they share a lot of common code and often changes in one of the > files > should be made in the other as well. However the problem with using common > function is, that now the filter names would not have a common prefix any > more. > Your code change is showing this, since now when analyzing a DTLS packet some > of > the filters would start with "ssl." > > While I like the idea of refactoring both SSL and DTLS we should first think > about a common nameing scheme for the filters, so that people using filters > will > not be surprised that some packets may not be matched. > > -- > ---> Dirk Jagdmann > ----> http://cubic.org/~doj > -----> http://llg.cubic.org > ___________________________________________________________________________ > Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> > Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev > Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev > mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
