Thanks for your answer
I wanted to put common part between DTLS in SSL in packet-ssl-utils.h
(including this header file) but I can make an packet-ssl-utils.h for
headers and a packet-ssl-utils.c for associated code.
If you agree I will post corresponding patch quickly (code for dtls in
actual version is very bad)
PS : the corresponding patch will be bigger than 40ko, have I to post
it on ethereal dev mailing list ?
On 7/13/06, ronnie sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
this is a header file but it contains a lot of code.
one should not keep code in a header file.
is there not a more appropriate file to keep the functions?
On 7/13/06, authesserre samuel <sauthess@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Nobody to answer me ?
>
> On 7/6/06, authesserre samuel <sauthess@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sorry for this mistake (first empty mail)
> >
> > I have done the same corrections on DTLS dissector that you have done
> > on SSL one....
> >
> > I have done more (because the dissector wasn't finished at all ;) ) :
> > - make code cleaner (removed SSL and pct code that was unuseful, add
> > comments, indentation corrections....)
> > - integration process
> >
> >
> > details :
> >
> > make code cleaner :
> > In my first patch I had just made adaptation without taking care about
> > dead code so I have corrected this now
> > I have added a description in the start of the plugin that explain (I
> > wish ;) ) that plugin follow the only actual implementation of DTLS
> > It is smaller and easier to understand...
> >
> >
> > integration process :
> > I have moved identical code in the two dissectors in a file named
> > packet-ssl-dtls-common.h, I haven't touch packet-ssl or
> > packet-ssl-utils before your agreement...(I think others things in
> > packet-ssl could be moved but I make things in order....)
> > Actually code is ready to integration and dtls dissector works with
> > the code in packet-ssl-dtls-common.h. With your aggreement I will
> > integrate this code in packet-ssl-utils and modify ssl dissector to
> > use this functions (just code moving and functions names move, no
> > algorithm modification to limit problems)
> > I have for exemple unified parse of preference parameter (who is
> > strictly the same) and others....
> >
> > enclosed the only file that could be sent on this mailing list (< 40
> > ko) that allows you to understand what I am saying (about ssl
> > interaction)
> >
> > Are you agree with this modifications?
> > Can I start modifications on ssl one ? (I will not start if it isn't
> > accepted ....)
> > where can I send my patch without problem (it is bigger than 40 ko) ?
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > regards,
> >
> >
> > On 7/6/06, authesserre samuel <sauthess@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Authesserre Samuel
> > > 12 rue de la défense passive
> > > 14000 CAEN
> > > FRANCE
> > > 06-27-28-13-32
> > > sauthess@xxxxxxxxx
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Authesserre Samuel
> > 12 rue de la défense passive
> > 14000 CAEN
> > FRANCE
> > 06-27-28-13-32
> > sauthess@xxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Authesserre Samuel
> 12 rue de la défense passive
> 14000 CAEN
> FRANCE
> 06-27-28-13-32
> sauthess@xxxxxxxxx
> _______________________________________________
> Wireshark-dev mailing list
> Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
>
--
Authesserre Samuel
12 rue de la défense passive
14000 CAEN
FRANCE
06-27-28-13-32
sauthess@xxxxxxxxx
