Douglas Pratley wrote:
2.) Packet Details / Copy item (only one Copy item in this menu):
Description
------------------
Bytes (Offset Hex Text)
Bytes (Offset Hex)
Bytes (Printable Text Only)
------------------
Bytes (Hex Stream)
Bytes (Binary Stream)
I agree that it would be good to combine the Copy / Copy Selected Bytes
menu items. I didn't for the first cut as I didn't want to interfere
with existing functionality.
Ack, keeping a contribution as simple as possible is a good idea - but
now we're already in the second round ;-)
Is "Description" the right phrase? I find it vague, but can't think of
anything better.
Same problem I had. I also just don't know a good and suitable name
here. Anyone else?
These items do something different to the ones from Menu (1); they copy
only the selected bytes. That is why they are "inconsistent" at the
moment. I agree that it is ugly to have them different, but is the
context of having a row within a packet enough to make it intuitive on
its own?
I guess so. This is a *context* menu, so it's ok in my eyes that the
same entry at different places will copy different parts.
BTW: I disagree that "these items do something different". They copy the
currently selected bytes in both cases, only the amount is different,
namely corresponding to the selection.
3.) Packet Bytes / Copy item:
The usability of this menu is completely odd, as you select
things you don't want.
With the new Details menu the dialog menu is completely
obsolete - after some cleanup. Namely moving the "Export
Selected Packet Bytes" item to Packet Details menu (shouldn't
be too difficult?!?). We might also want to remove this
export feature completely, as I guess that the "Copy"
mechanism is what users really need ...
Again, I was reluctant to change existing functionality; I think that we
should either drop the Copy and move the Export as you suggest, or else
duplicate the same Copy and Export functionality across both pop-ups
(either should be easy).
As the functionality doesn't work nicely in the Bytes pane, I'd vote to
just remove it. We can add it later again if someone is shouting "foul"
loud enough ;-)
The question is, is there anybody out there who is going to be upset if
we remove this functionality (or more accurately, move it and rename
it). I'd value a third opinion!
Well, removing *might* be a problem. My observation over the last years
of Ethereal / Wireshark development is that anything that is changed,
there's someone who will dislike it, regardless what your doing.
BTW: Is the "Printable Text" a good idea? Wouldn't the "common"
replacement of unprintable chars by dots be more common /
helpful? Or is there even a need for both?
Don't know - quite possibly both - I actually think we could probably
do with more advanced functionality that copes with unicode text (UTF-8
and UTF-16) as well. Steve F suggested being able to decode Base64 would
be useful. I hope that this patch will give a better baseline for all of
that if anyone gets the time to do it.
Ack, having a basic "copy" mechanism is a good idea. Don't know if an
UTF-8 will work nicely on Windows, but that needs further investigation.
I'm tempted to leave it for a few days to let my documentation patch
work its way through and to let others comment (they've been quiet so
far); if they stay quiet I'll then implement your suggestions.
I guess, the first comments you'll get is when the 0.99.6 is released in
a lot of weeks ;-)
Regards, ULFL
