Re: [Wireshark-commits] rev 44316: /trunk/ui/gtk/ /trunk/ui/gtk/: tcp_graph.c

[Anders Broman <anders.broman () ericsson com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: wireshark-dev-bounces () wireshark org [mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces () wireshark org] 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 () loplof de> 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 () loplof de>
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 () 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
___________________________________________________________________________
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