Re: Remove duplication for resolved addresses

[João Valverde <joao.valverde () tecnico ulisboa pt>]

On 09/10/2015 09:05 PM, Pascal Quantin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2015-09-10 13:50 GMT+02:00 João Valverde
> <joao.valverde () tecnico ulisboa pt
> <mailto:joao.valverde () tecnico ulisboa pt>>:
>
>     Hi list,
>
>     I proposed a change[1] to remove the duplication for resolved
>     addresses (not necessarily using that code) in the UI:
>
>        Src: 192.0.2.1, Dst: 192.0.2.2
>
>     Instead of:
>
>        Src: 192.0.2.1 (192.0.2.1), Dst: 192.0.2.2 (192.0.2.2)
>
>     This change (rightfully) raised concerns that it would break
>     backward compatibility for scripts parsing this output. Any thoughts
>     on this?
>
>     Just thinking out loud but maybe 2.0 would be a good opportunity to
>     change this (if indeed it is an improvement)?
>
>     If I understand the issue correctly I personally don't think this
>     should be a stable interface anyway but of course I'm willing to be
>     corrected on that.
>
>     Next step after this would be doing the same for port resolution...
>
>     Regards,
>
>     João V.
>
>     [1] https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/10203/
>
>
> Just a random thought (as I'm far from being a script expert). In case
> only one of the 2 IP address is resolved, would it be harder to parse?
>    Src: 192.0.2.1, Dst: localhost (127.0.0.1)
> The "advantage" of current code (whether it is relevant or not is an
> exercise left to the reader) is that you will always find the IP address
> (or port number) within parenthesis, whatever your preference
> configuration. On the other side, it is not really pretty to the eye.

Good point. I would take that format, no problem, but it might be worth 
having an exception in that case (would need to investigate the code 
feasibility).

I personally don't use address resolution (which is not relevant at all 
to the argument).

What I think is relevant is that for long, randomish IPv6 addresses it 
really starts to get cumbersome for humans to parse. And takes a lot of 
screen real-estate.

Having said that there may be other factors I'm missing, I don't use any 
automated output parsing either.

Regards,

JV

> Cheers,
> Pascal.
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
> Archives:    https://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:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
            mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe