On Apr 9, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Paul Offord <Paul.Offord@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> As making the code consistent has been rejected and the tap idea won’t work, where do we go from here?
As somebody said:
> We might also want a way to have taps/"post-"dissectors that act as extensions to particular protocol dissectors - that might be what TRANSUM, and possibly MATE, *really* want to be.)
and as somebody said in
https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev/201702/msg00082.html
> Alternatively, we could have a set of flags used when post-dissectors are registered, including "this post-dissector needs a protocol tree", and, if there are any active post-dissectors that require a protocol tree, one will be generated.