Ashok Narayanan wrote:
>
> Laurent Deniel writes:
> > Jeffrey Perry wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, one comment. I think this is the right approach, I would suggest
> > > taking it one step farther though. If you build the parser into
> > > ethereal, then no recompiles would be needed for adding a new
> > > protocol. This is how Etherpeek on Windows works.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, I like this approach also.
> >
> > I was already thinking about the handling of user-defined protocols in
> > a similar way but with direct processing in ethereal (no code generation
> > and so no recompilation - see some previous posts in mailing list).
>
> Given that we are an Open-Source project and the source code will
> always be available for compilation, is this really useful? I can see
> in a closed-source project the ability for users to extend the sniffer
> without giving them the source code could be useful, but I am not sure
> how this model extends over to Open Source.
Do you know about binary distributions (e.g. redhat binary rpm ;-) ?
And having the possibility to simply modify a text file to add/debug a new
protocol without any need to obtain the source and recompile ethereal
is good (and I don't even speak of multi-user environment where multiple
users could customize their use of ethereal with a single binary; yes
I need this feature ... ;-)
Laurent.
--
Laurent DENIEL | E-mail: deniel@xxxxxxxxxxx
Paris, FRANCE | laurent.deniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| WWW : http://www.worldnet.fr/~deniel
All above opinions are personal, unless stated otherwise.
