Biot Olivier wrote:
Let's try to summarize this:
L = packet list
D = packet dissection (or packet details)
B = packet (or reassembly) bytes
I'd propose we specify the lay-out of the window in 2 steps.
Step 1: Provide a "Window layout" option.
An end-user can toggle between the following options:
(o) Stacked (.) Large left pane (.) Large right pane
+---+
| 1 | +---+---+ +---+---+
+---+ | | 2 | | 1 | |
| 2 | | 1 +---+ +---+ 3 |
+---+ | | 3 | | 2 | |
| 3 | +---+---+ +---+---+
+---+
Step 2: Fill in the panes.
Here there are many options:
1. Provide a fixed list of entries (6 possibilities)
(o) L/D/B (.) D/L/B (.) B/L/D
(.) L/B/D (.) D/B/L (.) B/D/L
The defaults would be:
- Stacked L/D/B
- Large left pane L/D/B
- Large right pane L/B/D
2. Provide select boxes for the 3 panes, where the choices have
to be made from the 3 possibilities L, D and B.
Should we limit ourselves to the 3 panes currently available? It might
be useful to have a list of endpoints, or a TCP stream display in the
"B" pane, for example.
3. Provide "progressive radio button choices" where the choice
for 1 eliminates it in steps 2 and 3, and the choice for 2
automatically determines the choice for 3.
One must however provide a "reset" option in this scenario,
as an end-user may want to remake his choice.
We could provide a drop-down list for each pane (with "Nothing" as one
of the choices). When a user makes a selection from one list it would
be easy to adjust the other two accordingly.
4. A mix from 2 and 3 where the end-user is offered the
possibility to set the pane type for the first 2 panes only
by means of 2 select boxes; the 3rd panel is automatically
filled in based on the end-user's input of the 2 first panes.
The lay-out of the panes and the mapping of pane number with pane
type must be stored in preferences.
Should we offer the ability to switch between multiple layouts?
