Wireshark · Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Backport request for proto_tree_add_subtree[_format]

[mmann78@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

The proto_tree_add_subtree[_format] code refactoring was very intentionally post-1.12 and I don't see much point to just having the API there without it. Further refactoring of specific dissectors like SSL and DTLS probably won't be backported either, but if it is breaking a proto_tree_add_subtree back into its original proto_tree_add_text + proto_item_add_subtree doesn't seem that hard to do.

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Guy Harris <guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Developer support list for Wireshark <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thu, Jul 10, 2014 6:50 pm
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Backport request for proto_tree_add_subtree[_format]

On Jul 10, 2014, at 2:18 PM, Peter Wu <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I would like to have the proto_tree_add_subtree and 
> proto_tree_add_subtree_format functions backported to master-1.12. Any objects 

> to that? It is only a new addition to the API, so it should be pretty safe.
> 
> It should make backporting changes easier. (read: backport a refactoring (WIP) 

> to reduce code duplication in the SSL and DTLS dissectors.)

If the refactoring merely cleans up working code, producing code that doesn't 
appear different to the end user (old code dissects as well as new code, crashes 
no more than new code, etc.), it's probably not worth backporting it.

If the refactoring fixes bugs, or makes it easier to fix existing bugs, that 
might make it worth backporting.
___________________________________________________________________________
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