Re: RFD: Creating subdirectories in epan/dissectors/

[Evan Huus <eapache () gmail com>]

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Jaap Keuter <jaap.keuter () xs4all nl> wrote:
> On 08/30/2012 04:31 AM, Evan Huus wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Anders Broman<a.broman () bredband net>
> > wrote:
> > > Jeff Morriss skrev 2012-08-30 00:29:
> > >
> > > > Evan Huus wrote:
> > > > > > I'm not 100% convinced either way, but I have to admit I do like
> > > > > > having
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > the dissectors in the same directory.  "make -j 40" (on my 32-vCPU
> > > > > > SPARC)
> > > > > > works better that way ;-).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm pretty sure an autotools-generated Makefile will already recurse
> > > > > to fill the given job-count as long as there aren't any weird
> > > > > dependencies in place, so it shouldn't make any difference. Can't
> > > > > speak for cmake or windows builds.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Only if all the files are in one Makefile (e.g.,
> > > > epan/dissectors/Makefile).  If each subdir has its own Makefile then
> > > > each
> > > > directory is processed one at a time (in my experience).
> > > >
> > > > > > More seriously, I imagine I'd find it easier to
> > > > > > do:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > vi epan/dissectors/packet-xmpp<tab><tab>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > instead of:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > vi
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > epan/dissectors/packet-xmpp<tab><tab>[1]^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hxmpp<tab>/<tab><tab>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] insert grumpy remark here
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Fair enough. So another tweak to the suggested naming:
> > > > > packet-xmpp/xmpp-whatever.c
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In fact taking your suggestion of removing "packet-" from all the file
> > > > names would also achieve the same thing.
> > > I'm not particularly fond of the idea - just being conservative perhaps;
> > > but how many subdirectories
> > > are acceptable before it gets out of hand - 1000, one for every protocol
> > > in
> > > WS or a smaller number ;-)
> >
> >
> > I expect most dissectors will stay in the root of epan/dissectors/. My
> > understanding is that this would only be in a few select cases
> > (bluetooth and xmpp are the ones that come to mind) where there is a
> > clear logical grouping of a large number (16 for bluetooth, 14 for
> > xmpp) of files. It makes sense to put them in their own folder.
> >
> > I just gave epan/dissectors/ a quick scan. Here are the other large
> > groupings that immediately stand out:
> > - aim (23 files)
> > - dcerpc (111 files)
> > - gsm (23 files)
> > - h### (33 files) (is there a better generic name for this category?)
> > - ipmi (12 files)
> > - smb (15 files)
> > - zbee (14 files)
> >
> > There are lots and lots of smaller groups of 4-5 files, but I wouldn't
> > expect them to get their own folder.
> >
> > More input is always welcome :)
> >
> > Evan
>
>
> Oke, I'm still missing the quantitative rationale here. When I'm looking at
> the number of dissector files in trunk I get:
>
> jaap@phoenix:~/src/wireshark/trunk/epan/dissectors$ ls -1 | grep ^packet |
> wc -l
> 1501
>
> Your list gives 23+111+23+33+12+15+14 = 231, that's a mere 15%.
>
> That doesn't really alleviate the problem.

I don't think the intent in the original proposal was that this would
magically reduce epan/dissectors/ to a fraction of its original size,
but 15% is a non-trivial improvement. Also, my list was only a quick
scan based on file-name similarities. I'm sure there are other logical
groups that aren't as obvious simply because the file names are
inconsistent.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe