On Feb 8, 2014, at 8:36 PM, Tony Trinh <ton...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hadrial Kaplan wrote: > > The problem is if you write a plugin for others to use, requiring them to > compile code is a high bar to expect. So if it's more than just another pure > lua lib which doesn't need c-code to be compiled, as a file/dir accessor > would need, it's tough. :( > > I agree (?)... or perhaps I'm not following. ;)
Sorry I was using a phone to email. :) I meant that if I write a Lua plugin for wireshark and want other normal users to be able to use my plugin, then expecting those users to compile C-code is a high barrier to entry. Since file handling functions require C-code to be compiled, and can't be done in a pure Lua-library alone, it might make sense to have wireshark offer them... not all such functions, just a few more simple ones like mkdir/remove, and probably only them. > I *think* Guy was proposing the Wireshark Lua API included the LuaFileSystem > library (or a wrapper around it) out of the box, which is something already > done with Lua BitOp [1][2], so users wouldn't have to explicitly compile it > themselves. Or were you referring to something else? Yeah, that kind of idea - although I would vote for his second option: not to use/wrap LuaFileSystem, and instead just expose the existing ws_mkdir/ws_remove functions. -hadriel p.s. Penlight uses LuaFileSystem for file/dir operations, I believe. It has a hard dependency on it for those modules, afaik. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
