Umm... I remember some epic discussions when two colleagues were discussling
about the application-layer. I remember very vividly that the application
layer from the 1st colleague was the transport layer of the 2nd :)
I'm in favor of either keeping "frame" or using "PDU".
In that context, reassembly might be called SDU reassembly, as I don't know
any reassembly code trying to reassemble something different from a SDU
(Service Data Unit).
Regards,
Olivier
| -----Original Message-----
| From: Ulf Lamping
|
| Hi List!
|
| As the release is almost out of the door...
|
| I will have a second try, to get an answer to the following
| question ;-)
|
| All over the Ethereal GUI, both words "Packet" and "Frame"
| are used, IMHO with the same meaning. Unless there is a good
| reason not to, we should use only one of these words, and
| this consistent in the entire GUI (in all menus, dialogs,
| ...). IMHO, I would prefer to use "Packet" everywhere, and
| rename every appearance of "Frame" to "Packet".
|
| This has nothing to do with the naming scheme of the specific
| protocols (e.g.: in the packet list, packet details, ...),
| it's only about the generic GUI elements like the menu
| itemnames itself: e.g."View/Frame In New Window", "Edit/Find
| Frame" and also the corresponding dialogs, like some labels
| in the dialogs of: "Tools/Summary", "Capture/Start".
|
| I have asked this question the list before, but since now, I
| have no answer to this topic :-(
|
| IMHO this will be a lot of places in the gtk dir only.
| Hopefully, no other files must be touched for this.
|
|
| So my question: Is it a good idea, to replace (all?)
| appearances of "Frame" in the gtk dir to "Packet", or should
| it be the called "Frame"? Or is there a good reason why this
| is the way it currently is?
|
| Regards, ULFL