Sake Blok wrote: > On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 09:59:33PM +0800, Jeff Morriss wrote: >> Sake Blok wrote: >>> 1) add another field to incorporate the "Time delta since previous >>> frame in the tracefile". This is an option Jeff Morriss suggested >>> already. >>> >>> 2) have an option in the "frame" protocol preferences to select the >>> behaviour of "frame.time_delta". The default would be to use >>> "Time delta since previous displayed frame" and the alternative >>> would be "Time delta since previous frame in the trace-file" >>> >>> Does anyone have another solution for this bug or maybe another idea >>> for solving it? What would be the prefered way of solving this bug? >> (2) sounds confusing to users (1 field with 2 different meanings?). >> Anyway, fields are cheap so why not just add a new one? > > I remember some reluctance when I added the http.x_forwarded_for > field, so that's why I thought a preference might do the trick too. > > Next question is of course, how will we call this new field? > > - frame.time_delta2 > - frame.time_delta_file > - frame.time_delta_abs > - frame.time_gap > - frame.time_diff
What about renaming the current field "frame.time_delta_displayed" and name the new one "frame.time_delta"? That changes the current field but it sounds a whole lot more intuitive to me. _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
