-----Original Message-----
From: wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 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 <jmayer@xxxxxxxxx> 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 <jmayer@xxxxxxxxx>
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 <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
