Ethereal-users: Re: [Ethereal-users] issue with giop syncscope value
Note: This archive is from the project's previous web site, ethereal.com. This list is no longer active.
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:27:55 +0100
Yes, I completly agree with you thanks for providing the patch regards Nicolas Bernd Becker <bb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>@ethereal.com on 11/03/2003 10:26:22 Sent by: ethereal-users-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx To: Nicolas DE MONTBEL/FR/ALCATEL@ALCATEL, ethereal-users@xxxxxxxxxxxx cc: ethereal-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [Ethereal-users] issue with giop syncscope value Hi Nicolas, I think you are right. We should not map the response_flags to sync_scope. The sync_scope defined in packet-giop.c obviously came from the following definition in Corba Messaging Quality of Service: typedef short SyncScope; const SyncScope SYNC_NONE = 0; const SyncScope SYNC_WITH_TRANSPORT = 1; const SyncScope SYNC_WITH_SERVER = 2; const SyncScope SYNC_WITH_TARGET = 3; We should leave the sync_scope value_string unchanged in case somebody implements the Messaging module, although that would probably be another plugin. We should either just display the numeric value for the response_flags or maybe display something more like a comment as in the spec, e.g. static const value_string response_flags[] = { { 0x0, "SyncScope NONE or WITH_TRANSPORT" }, { 0x1, "SyncScope WITH_SERVER"}, { 0x3, "SyncScope WITH_TARGET"}, { 0, NULL} }; I can supply a patch if you (and maybe others) agree. I don't really know if anybody has looked at the changes in the Corba 3.0 Spec to see what has to be added/changed in packet-giop.c. Some additions were made regarding Service Contexts a short time ago. It might be better to ask such questions on the developer list, as I suspect that not many of the few giop developers check the users list. I will send this to the developers list. Regards, Bernd --On Monday, March 10, 2003 17:25:00 +0100 Nicolas.De_Montbel@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Hello everybody, > I am new on this tool which seems to be very convenient and complete > but I have a problem on decoding one giop request header (response flags). > > from CORBA3.0 specification : > "response_flags is set to 0x0 for a SyncScope of NONE and > WITH_TRANSPORT. The flag is set to 0x1 for a SyncScope of > WITH_SERVER. A non exception reply to a request message containing a > response_flags value of 0x1 should contain an empty body, i.e. the > equivalent of > a void operation with no out/inout parameters. The flag is set to 0x3 for > a SyncScope of WITH_TARGET. These values ensure interworking compatibility > between this and previous versions of GIOP." > In packet-giop.c : > static const value_string sync_scope[] = { > { 0x0, "SYNC_NONE" }, > { 0x1, "SYNC_WITH_TRANSPORT"}, > { 0x2, "SYNC_WITH_SERVER"}, > { 0x3, "SYNC_WITH_TARGET"}, > { 0, NULL}}; > > This is quite different. > > Can you confirm that > and say to me how can I correct that in Ethereal > sincerly > > Nicolas de Montbel > Alcatel Lannion,France _______________________________________________ Ethereal-users mailing list Ethereal-users@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.ethereal.com/mailman/listinfo/ethereal-users
- Prev by Date: [Ethereal-users] Installation problem
- Next by Date: Re: [Ethereal-users] driver for cisco aironet340
- Previous by thread: Re: [Ethereal-users] issue with giop syncscope value
- Next by thread: [Ethereal-users] PEAP
- Index(es):