>Message: 4 >Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:19:43 -0400 >From: Kevin Cox <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Subject: [Wireshark-dev] Plugin Dissector vs Builtin Dissector >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >Hello, > >Forgive me if this has been asked before but I can't find any resources >about the advantages/disadvantages of plugin dissectors and the ideal >cases for each. > >So far I have gathered that plugin dissectors are "easiest to write >initially"[0] while builtin dissectors load slightly faster. > >[0] https://www.wireshark.org/docs/wsdg_html_chunked/ChDissectAdd.html > >I have read the README.{developer,dissector,plugin} and a number of >others but can't find a resource to help me decide which to write. > >For the curious I will be working on a dissector for the Ceph[1] >protocol as a gsoc project this summer and am trying to make the >decision whether a builtin or plugin dissector would be preferred. > >[1] https://ceph.com/ > >Cheers, >Kevin
One factor to consider is whether the contents of the packet is considered proprietary. In that sense, developing and releasing the protocol dissector as a plugin allows to one to control the code distribution without the need to maintain a fork of Wireshark. For development purposes, either is fine, but Wireshark appears to prefer to release dissectors as built-in when feasible. Best regards, John Dill
<<winmail.dat>>
___________________________________________________________________________ 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
