-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joerg Mayer Sent: den 8 augusti 2012 09:20 To: Developer support list for Wireshark Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] [Wireshark-commits] rev 44316: /trunk/ui/gtk/ /trunk/ui/gtk/: tcp_graph.c
>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. Or graph_utils.c >> 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++... Io_graph.c rtp_analysis.c and iax_analysis.c is very similar and there's the same problem of sharing code. >If they are similar, then how about having a common graph structure with (a) >task specific pointer(s) at then >end? Something alog those lines might work e.g a shared graph structure. >> 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. Yes I sort of gave up on the io_graph. 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 ___________________________________________________________________________ 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
