Hi, I have to refer back to my earlier statement: "the code is very hard to read. I can't really comment beyond that.". What John and you are asking is that we actually read it, understand it and see how this could be accepted. That is the whole point. If you would give it another go we are willing to give it a shot, just like any other dissector.
Thanx, Jaap Matt Poduska wrote: > Is there anything other than the use of the portability wrappers that are > preventing this dissector from being accepted (making the code very hard to > read and maintain)? > > Please let me know what needs to change in the dissector in order to be > accepted. > > - Matt Poduska > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jaap Keuter > Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 1:17 AM > To: Developer support list for Wireshark > Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] LLRP dissector support > > 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
