I took a deeper look at it. And although it is very powerful and
versatile, I think it would be overkill in my case. But nether the
less, I contacted Olivier and asked him, what his plans are and if he
wants to see wsgd integrated into Wireshark.
For letting other people use it to integrate new protocols, I totally
agree on that point. But for it being easy to use, it should
definitely be supported by an UI.
I will take a deeper look at the sourcecode and then try to figure out
what (together with Olivier as part of wsgd or building something new)
can be submitted as a patch.
regards,
Roland
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:51 PM, Guy Harris <guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Oct 15, 2013, at 10:43 PM, Roland Knall <rknall@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Ok. But then the question comes up, if a UI interface should be part
>> of Wireshark or part of wsgd. As a last resort wsgd could be ported to
>> wireshark, but this is a shoe I would only put on me as a last step.
>
> wsgd is currently a plugin dissector for Wireshark, so I'm not sure what "ported to Wireshark" would mean.
>
> I think it should, in some form, be incorporated into Wireshark, so as to, at minimum, allow people to add support for new protocols to Wireshark without having to write C or C++ code and run a compiler to build a plugin or a new version of Wireshark with a new builtin dissector.
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
> mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe