Hello Martin, thanks for the detailed writeup.
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Joerg Mayer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Naive question: Why isn't that cross handling code shared between the two > > files? > I think it was Guy that asked before about factoring out code that is > common between the 2 modules. I really dislike that there is identical > code in both modules. I did start to make a list of types and functions > that could be shared, but it quickly looked messy. I couldn't even decide > what to call the new module (was it just to be shared between these 2 > files, or would it likely be useful for someone creating a third module > like these?). Maybe call it graph_common.[hc] and move the stuff in there that is of interest to more than one graphing module. > rlc_lte_graph.c began as a copy of tcp_graph.c. Initially there were some > features that I didn't like (or in some cases didn't understand) so cut > them out. Some of them I have since added back, with improvements copied > back to the TCP graph. The biggest change is that I didn't want to have > the control window, so there are various places where I cut out references > to the controls in the control panel that affects behaviour of the graph, > then tried to automatically do the sensible thing (e.g. customising the way > the zoom factors work, or the way the divisions on the axis work). > > Even where some functions are textually the same, they often refer to types > (chiefly the graph struct) that are different between the 2 graphs. This > could have worked well in C++... If they are similar, then how about having a common graph structure with (a) task specific pointer(s) at then end? > I will stop messing around with the RLC graph soon - it may be easier to > see how to share what they have in common when it has settled down. OK, looks like this may become a much larger task than is worth doing - depending on time and interest. Ciao Jörg -- Joerg Mayer <[email protected]> We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology. ___________________________________________________________________________ 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
