["Ronnie Sahlberg" <sahlberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: "Brad Hards"
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 7:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Ethereal-dev] SLPv2 support


> On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 00:16, Ronnie Sahlberg wrote:
>
> > See the changes to packet-portmap.c between version 1.35 and 1.36   I
think
> > it is reasonably similar to what you are after.
> > (When portmap sees certain packets it will register a dissector for that
> > port.)
> > So, inside the dissector for the RQ,E1 -> x,SLP packet, you just create
a
> > conversation
> > for RQ,E1 <-> ANY,ANY   and attach your dissector to it.
> Thanks. I'll take a look. I guess I'd need to find something that
deregisters
> too (based on time or packet behaviour).

I dont think you have to worry about deregistering it.
No one else deregisters dissectors like this.
This method attaches a dissector to a conversation.
All conversations will be automatically destroyed and rebuilt every time you
open a
new capture file or start a new capture, so it will sort of be deregistered
automagically everytime a new capture is loaded.


>
> > There is the switch(function) thingy where inside each case: x
> > there is a proto_tree_add_text() to put the name of the function in the
> > tree.
> > Is this not redundant and really the same as the previous
> > proto_tree_add_uint(srvloc_tree, hf_srvloc_function,
> > earlier in the same function?
> It is a bit redundant. I would have killed it, except that it acts as a
marker
> between the common parts and the function-specific parts of the packet.
> I'll look again. Maybe it would look better as a sub-tree....
>
> If I clean this up, is there any chance of getting it applied to CVS?

Yes there certainly is.
I could check in the current patch for you if you want to? just tell me.

If you want the stuff checked in instead of only reviewed please tell so in
the posting.
Often people post work in progress only to get peer review on works in
progress and thus does not want it checked in until they are happy with it.


If you want the current version of the patch checked in, just repost it with
"please check this in, it seems to work fine".

I might not be able to check it in myself since i will be moving houses in
two days and will be travelling so i will not have internet access for a
week or two.
There are others on the list that will be happy to check it in for you.

best regards
    ronnie sahlberg