Hi,
At 05:46 PM 7/5/99 -0400, "Farley, Tim (ISSAtlanta)" <TFarley@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> I was already thinking about the handling of user-defined protocols in
>>> a similar way but with direct processing in ethereal (no code generation
>>> and so no recompilation - see some previous posts in mailing list).
>
>>Given that we are an Open-Source project and the source code will
>>always be available for compilation, is this really useful?
>
>Yes.
>
>Not everyone who uses Ethereal (or products like it) is necessarily a C
>programmer. Being able to add functionality without writing code would
>greatly broaden the appeal of Ethereal.
OK, the argument seems to be about whether or not it needs to be a run-time
interpreter, or a build-time decoder production system.
At the moment, I am focussed on a build-time system, but I now tend to
agree, after seeing Laurent's posting about binary distributions, like the
Linux world that I live in, that a run-time interpreter may be needed.
More thought is needed.
>=====================================
>Tim Farley
>Software Engineer
>tfarley@xxxxxxx
>
>Internet Security Systems, Inc.
>(678) 443-6000 / Direct Dial (678) 443-6189 / fax (678) 443-6479
>http://www.iss.net
>
>Adaptive Network Security for the Enterprise
>=====================================
Regards
-------
Richard Sharpe, sharpe@xxxxxxxxxx, NS Computer Software and Services P/L,
Samba (Team member www.samba.org), Ethereal (Team member www.zing.org)
Co-author, SAMS Teach Yourself Samba in 24 Hours
