On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Michael Tuexen wrote:
> I'm supporting this kind of flexibility.
>
> The reasons:
> ....
> 3. I like this kind of flexibility. Possibly we can also use it
> in the public. Maybe there is a website describing a protocol
> better than the page in the Wiki and no one wants to do that
> work on the Wiki.
>
> On Aug 31, 2005, at 17:31 Uhr, Joerg Mayer wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 02:40:14PM +0200, Thomas Boehne wrote:
> >> On Wednesday 31 August 2005 14:00, Jaap Keuter wrote:
> >>> With the risk of getting flamed I want to float this idea. Currently
> >>> Ethereal can 'leak' information to the world by refering back to the
> >>> Wiki as online protocol reference.
> >>
> >> I patched my gtk/main.c to redirect accesses for my own plugins to our
> >> local Wiki, which works quite well. However, it would be nicer if
> >> there was an API to set the URL from the plugin code (thus allowing
> >> each plugin to have it's own URL). So instead of adding a boolean
> >> field hfinfo->proprietary I would add a pointer to a URL (which should
> >> default to wiki.ethereal.com, if unset).
> >
> > I'm stronly against either solution.
> > a) I'm no fan of proprietary stuff and if people really feel like using
> > ......
>
All right, the discussion has ensued.
What I would like to point out though is that this mechanism isn`t just
for the Wiki. It is intended to be a generic flagging mechnism to alter
the programs behaviour in case of a proprietary protocol. Then the first
thing that comes to mind is blocking the Wiki, but other changes are
imaginable.
Could we refrain from limiting Ethereals functionality in these cases?
Maybe, but we shouldn`t. It should be an encouragement to free the
dissector. But that isn`t always a call corporate coders can make.
Thanx,
Jaap
