On Apr 9, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Paul Offord <[email protected]> wrote:
> As making the code consistent has been rejected and the tap idea won’t work,
> where do we go from here?
As somebody said:
> We might also want a way to have taps/"post-"dissectors that act as
> extensions to particular protocol dissectors - that might be what TRANSUM,
> and possibly MATE, *really* want to be.)
and as somebody said in
https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/201702/msg00082.html
> Alternatively, we could have a set of flags used when post-dissectors are
> registered, including "this post-dissector needs a protocol tree", and, if
> there are any active post-dissectors that require a protocol tree, one will
> be generated.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]>
Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
