Hi,
Adding another helper may be helpful, as it would probably gives us
greater control, and maybe also solve the "helper-script" issue in the
future by putting that stuff inside Wireshark? I am just wondering if it
is worth the effort. We can obviously strive for a perfect - no user
interaction required - solution, but do we really need to be perfect here?
In my experience, as long as we can solve the real issue - the zombie
processes - and have minimal interaction by the creators of the original
extcaps we should be fine. Now as I understand it, we can achieve that
at some level with one of the proposed solutions above, just not in an
ideal way, right?
I wrote my notes and thoughts in previous email.
I am fine with having developers adapt their script, as long as there is
some form of compatibility mode, and maybe some warning displayed before
starting a non-converted extcap
API with pipe is backward compatible. Therefore non-converted extcaps
can run as before.
I just think that warning about non-converted extcap is not required. a
extcap was working before, without graceful shutdown, therefore it is
not required for the extcap. When author learns that graceful shutdown
is available and is useful for the extcap, they can adapt it.
But it is optional from my point of view.
Best regards,
Jirka
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
