Ethereal-dev: Re: [Ethereal-dev] HF? or proto_add_tree_XXX?

Note: This archive is from the project's previous web site, ethereal.com. This list is no longer active.

From: Jaime Fournier <jafour1@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 13:03:07 -0800 (PST)
OK.
That will work.
I had sort of start with an OUT_UINT like the afs
macros.
But I can definately add the extra line here, or there
that will
be specific to the var in question.
Thanks for the input.
--- Guy Harris <gharris@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 02:09:19PM -0700, Jaime
> Fournier wrote:
> > I am working on cleaning my code in
> > packet-dcerpc-afs4int.c.
> > So farI have made a macros header  file to house
> all
> > the common dissection structures.
> > This will allow me to complete all the dissectors
> for 
> > afs4int, and keep it very clean.
> > Now I am stuck at weather to choose the method of
> > using a generic var for hf, e.g.
> > hf_afs4int_gen_uint32, or to choose the
> > proto_tree_add_xxx functions, which will give more
> > descriptive names. Was not sure the direction I
> should
> > go. Any help is greatly appreciated!
> 
> I would vote for using specific hf_ values for
> specific fields, rather
> than, for example, using the same hf_ value for all
> 32-bit unsigned
> integer fields.  If you use the same hf_ value for
> multiple fields, then
> 
> 	1) either they all get listed in the protocol tree
> as "Unsigned
> 	   32-bit integer" or something such as that, or
> you have to use
> 	   the "proto_tree_add_xxx_format()" functions to
> make them
> 	   display meaningfully;
> 
> 	2) you can't filter on specific fields.
> 
> (Those would mean there'd be no point in giving them
> hf_ values at all,
> as
> 
> 	1) you'd have to use a format string anyway;
> 
> 	2) you can't filter on them individually.)


=====
Jaime Fournier

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/