Re: Inconsistent availability of proto_tree values during the first of two passes

[Guy Harris <guy () alum mit edu>]

On Apr 9, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Paul Offord <Paul.Offord () advance7 com> 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.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe