On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 14:15:45 +0100 (CET), Jaap Keuter
<jaap.keuter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2005, ronnie sahlberg wrote:
>
> > do we need plugin support? it is a serious question.
>
> Serious answer: Yes
>
> [rant deleted]
> > end of rant.
>
> I think we shoudn't underestimate the use of the plugin model for
> not-for-public dissectors and quick dissector development.
> Private dissectors may be restricted from distribution (proprietary
> protocols, linked to NDA's). So it may be unacceptable to build them into
> installers, which may leak more easily, since they look like stock
> Ethereal installers. The model is that stock installers are distributed
> around, while the private dissectors are added to a lab installation only.
> Dissector development based on the plugin model makes it:
I understand fully well that some protocol dissectors can not/should
not go into ethereal for various reasons.
I frequently use several such protocols and dissectors myself.
The question was not regarding whether ethereal should allow/disallow
such dissectors, far from it.
The question was based on my personal observation that the plugin
interface has currently failed to make this possible.
In my experience, many maintainers of out-of-tree protocols seem to
prefer to just make a special build about once a year or so with the
out-of-tree dissector built in as a normal dissector, then the full
version of ethereal with this special dissector built in is
distributed to the lab.
If my observations from my exposure to this limited subset of all
out-of-tree dissectors that exists are invalid or not the norm, then
ok.
Othervise, if my experiences are the norm, then why bother with a
plugin interface if the out-of-tree dissector maintainers arent
bothering with it either?
Are the out-of-tree maintainers using the plugin api?
The ones i use are not using the plugin api.
