[Ulf Lamping <ulf.lamping@xxxxxx>]

Guy Harris wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 10:44:24AM +0100, Ulf Lamping wrote:
>  
>
> > I might be an idea to sort this by protocol layer,
> >    
>
> Where do you propose to do the sorting?
>
> Note that menu items for taps aren't set up from a list in menu.c - the
> menu items are added by the tap's register routine. 
> "register_tap_menu_item()" would either have to figure out from the menu
> path where to put the items, or would have to be told where to put them
> by the taps.
>
>  
I would think, that the tap should additionally have to tell this 
function into which layer it should be placed:

0 - TAP_LAYER_GENERIC
1 - TAP_LAYER_PHYSICAL (shouldn't happen with ethereal?)
2 - TAP_LAYER_LINK
3 - TAP_LAYER_NETWORK
4 - TAP_LAYER_TRANSPORT
5 - TAP_LAYER_SESSION
6 - TAP_LAYER_PRESENTATION
7 - TAP_LAYER_APPLICATION

this would be an additional parameter for the register_tap_menu_item() 
function. If a protocol handles more than one layer,
it should be registered at the lowest layer. This is especially true for 
the layers 5 to 7.

The alphabetical order should be done be the register function, by 
looking at the existing menuitems I would think (but didn't had a look at).
The tap shouldn't have to know which other taps are available.


In general: I think it's more of a question *if* it's a good idea worth 
to be implemented.

How this should be implemented can be thought about, when the next 
release is out.

Regards, ULFL