Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Inconsistent availability of proto_tree values during the fi
Date Index · Thread Index · Other Months · All Mailing Lists
Date Prev · Date Next · Thread Prev · Thread Next
From: Guy Harris <guy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 13:01:19 -0700
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.