On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 05:15:23PM -0600, Bryant Eastham wrote:
> I appreciate your quick (if not ideal) reply.
>
> Is this sort of thing viewed by the majority as a limitation?
I'm not the majority - I'd only be the majority if I were the only
developer - so I can't answer that question; I'm CCing my reply to
ethereal-dev, so we can actually ask enough people to get a majority.
> It certainly
> is for the class of protocols that I work with. Viewing it a nice thing, and
> with your knowledge of the internals, would such a feature be difficult to
> implement?
I don't know. You'd have to look through the code to see how many
places assume (implicitly or explicitly) that there's a one-to-one
correspondence between frames and rows.
Note also that
1) the way the summary display works is subject to change (e.g.,
it's subject to being modified so that the text values of the
columns in a row are found not by storing them in a data
structure attached to a row but by reading in the frame and
dissecting it);
2) people might, in the future, want a feature that does
multiple rows per frame, but not of the sort you're talking
about - they might want to be able to display a multi-line
Info column for a *single* packet, or they might want to
display Info column values for all the layers in the packet
(Network Associates' Sniffer can do that), so a scheme to do
multiple Info lines should be able to handle all of those
being in effect for the same frame.