How about putting dissectors that fit together in the same subdirectory? I'm
prepared to compile a list based on your input.
For example:
All WAP dissectors (wtls, wtp, wsp and wbxml) could go in epan/proto/wap
All DCE/RPC dissectors (packet-dcerpc-*) in epan/proto/dcerpc
All IP and ICMP for IPv4 and IPv6 in epan/proto/ip
That's for the obvious ones, now the remaining ones :)
The issue is that it is not always simple to know whether one protocol can
be transported over another one, and as a result, many subtrees will
probably complicate the code writing (dependencies on header files residing
in another subtree etc)...
Regards,
Olivier
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Guy Harris
|
| On Oct 24, 2003, at 10:17 AM, Bryan Henderson wrote:
|
| > OK, so there appears to be agreement that the source tree should be
| > rearranged to be more managable. How would we go about doing that?
|
| Well, we'd first decide what the rearrangement should be; there's not
| much you can do to rearrange stuff if you don't know where
| you're going
| to put it.
|
| Does a consensus exist on that yet? People have suggested both
| "plugins" and "epan/plugins"; nobody's offered any concrete proposals
| for further subdivision.
|
| > The suggestions given so far are simply to move the packet*
| files into
| > a
| > subdirectory. That's a good first step, but I think even that
| > directory
| > would be too big and ought to be split into categories -- probably
| > following the protocol hierarchy.
|
| Example?
|
| Note that there are cases where there are sets of dissectors
| that share
| code or data tables. It would probably be A Good Idea to
| keep them in
| the same directory.
|
| > With the file in a "packet" directory, the "packet-" part
| of the file
| > name
| > is redundant. What do people think about removing it?
|
| That sounds reasonable.