On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 11:45:57PM +0200, M??she Van der Sterre wrote:
> As far as I know this dissector conforms to the usual way things are
> done with wireshark. But I like to hear about anything I missed, or
> should have done another way.
With only a quick glance, I noticed some C++ style comments (//) in
there that need to be changed to C style (/* */). Could you send an
updated patch with this fixed and that includes the correction you made
in a follow-up e-mail to this one on the 16th.
> This dissector currently has all the features the current
> (packet-ib.c) dissector has, so replacing it right away should not be
> a problem.
I'm not familar with packet-ib, so excuse my ignorance. Is there any
reason that packet-ib couldn't be updated instead of replacing it? What
else does your dissector cover that packet-ib didn't?
> I hope to implement the other opcodes soon, most of the work is
> already done. But I have still to look at ways to generate (correct)
> packages for some (those not or ralely used by the current firebird
> package). Extensive testing with invalid packages is also on the todo
> list.
Great!
Steve