On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Jeff Morriss <[email protected]>wrote:
> Kaul wrote: > > 3. Corrected hextile encoding parsing. It's quite wrong the way it's > > done today (see 2nd rectangle in packet 23 of the attached sample > > capture). It completely ignored the fact that the hextile encoding is > > actually encoding a series of 16 by 16 pixel tiles (hence hexTILE, I > > reckon). This presents another problem which I don't know how to solve - > > I'm getting too many (legitimate!) items in my tree - and wireshark > > thinks I'm in an infinite loop. The fact it, each update may have > > several rectangles, each may have subrectables, each may have tiles... > > it's endless if the screen is big enough. > > Hmmm, are the items really of that much interest to a user? I mean, > would someone really want to look at all 150,000 tiles (or whatever) > one-by-one? I would guess not, in which case it would probably make > sense to just have an item that says "150,000 tiles." > Well, it is interesting if you have few of them, to see how the protocol really works. I guess I should stop adding them at some point... first 100 or so? if it's smaller than a packet size? Nevertheless, one might want to find oddities in the protocol implementation, and then he will need all of the data. Y. ___________________________________________________________________________ > Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> > Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev > Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev > mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe >
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
