Thanks for the answer.
To be honest, I did NOT know the LUA dissector !
The LUA example given into the wireshark documentation seems effectively
a little bit complicated
compared to a simple descritpion.
So I will not make a better answer.
Olivier
Guy Harris a �crit :
On Nov 12, 2008, at 2:01 PM, Jaap Keuter wrote:
How does this compare to LUA?
1) it works even if Wireshark isn't built with Lua
2) more importantly, it's a *descriptive* language, not an
*imperative* language - you don't write code to dissect the packet,
you write a description of what the packets look like, so presumably
it's easier to write and harder to get wrong.
_______________________________________________
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev