Hi, Well, as the general comment states "the code is very hard to read". I can't really comment beyond that. If the code is reasonably written and understandable and adheres to the coding guidelines found in README.developer it shouldn't be a big problem getting it in.
Thanx, Jaap John R. Hogerhuis wrote: > Jaap Keuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Hi John, >> >> I've been looking at this submission from the start, and frankly I don't >> like >> it. It is like Ronnie says in >> http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1957#c4, this code is >> very >> hard to read, let alone maintain. >> I don't want to sign off on that and burden myself and other with the >> maintenance chores. So I left it alone for another core developer to >> eventually pick it up. It seems none is confident enough to commit it. >> > > Well that's a clear statement of the problem, thanks for the reply. > > It appears Matt is responding favorably to requests to make specific > improvements. General criticisms about hard to read/maintain and how he has > abstracted the message parsing are obviously harder to address. My > understanding > is that parts of the code are generated based on XML descriptors of the binary > protocol available from http://sourceforge.net/projects/llrp-toolkit (I am a > developer for this project but not the LLRP dissector). > > If the code could be simplified to avoid wrappers are there other issues for > you > or Ronnie that would stand in the way of commit? > > Thanks, > > -- John. _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
