On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Guy Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 31, 2017, at 11:09 AM, Jeff Morriss <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > A counter argument to this would be that there are some advantages to > not using a (temporary) file as the buffer packets. > > For Wireshark, you have no alternative, as packets aren't processed only > once. > > For TShark with -2, the same applies. > > TShark with one pass is the one place where you wouldn't want a temporary > file. > Ah, I guess implicit in my statement was the thought that we'd (have to) go back to *shark writing the file. Which would mean that while it could solve the 2 bugs it wouldn't do anything about the fact that the data's going to a file (except that it would allow the user to limit how much data is going to the file with a read filter). (So my 3rd point is somewhat meaningless.)
___________________________________________________________________________ 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
