On Jul 4, 2018, at 2:27 AM, Dario Lombardo <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 8:49 PM Guy Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Should we, instead, get rid of the scope arguments to those functions and,
>> instead, have separate functions, one of which serves the original purpose,
>> using file scope, and one of which serves this new purpose, using
>> pinfo->pool scope?
>
> It looks neat, but I see 2 issues:
>
> 1) grep -r "p_\(add\|get\|remove\)_proto_data" ../epan/dissectors/* | wc -l
> gives me 881 calls to those functions. It could be harsh to change all of them
Time for me to learn Coccinelle:
http://coccinelle.lip6.fr
and download and install it. (An ed script could probably do a lot of it, but
it's past time to get Coccinelle into my toolkit.)
> as well as breaking compatibility with existing code outside wireshark
> (plugins?).
We don't guarantee API compatibility between major or dot releases, only
between dot-dot releases.
> 2) are we sure that a call to (eg.)
> p_proto_add_data_with_file_scope_or_another_name() is more meaningful than
> p_proto_add_data(wmem_file_scope(), ...)? How could those 2 functions be
> named to recall the actual goal?
{add,get}_persistent_proto_data()
{add,get}_per_layer_packet_info()
or something such as that. The scope isn't relevant, the *purpose of the data*
is relevant, and dictates the scope to use.
(It also removes the possibility to get the scope wrong, using a scope not
supported by the routines.)
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]>
Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
