Olivier Biot wrote:
From: Ulf Lamping
| Richard Sharpe wrote:
|
| >On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Ulf Lamping wrote:
| >
| >>Hmmm, I just checked in some major rework of the menu structure of
| >>Analyze/Statistics:
| >>
| >>Sorted by ISO-layer then by alphabetical order.
Here I am again, nitpicking on ISO-OSI :) In some environments it is
not really obvious to talk about a given OSI layer. This is
particularly true in areas where clsssical telecom and the Internet
are joined. I tend to define (parts of) the OSI stack with a starting
reference point. To state it in a simple manner: user A's application
layer is maybe user B's transport layer. For this reason, I feel
unhappy about using absolute OSI reference layer mappings to
protocols.
I don't think that's true (at least on the protocols we currently have
taps for),
e.g. the IP protocol is a network protocol, regardless what's above and
what's
below it and what you are doing with it in your specific task. It might
be true that you have multiple
network protocols in your stack, but that doesn't change the facts.
There might be other protocols, where it's not that sure.
And keep in mind: *if* you are doing this and trying to analyze things,
you will usually *know* that you're doing
"unusual things" with it, and what the usual "use case" would be (so
where you have to look at).
| The previous structure was the other way round, you had to have a
| function in mind,
| and then look after the protocols implemented this function.
I think both approaches are valid. However an end-user might expect
some functionality which is not present for the desired protocol
because it was not implemented (yet).
I think we should go for a mix of both approaches. Maybe we could have
the taps register the protocol name of every protocol they act upon so
we could use context-specific menus when we select a given packet or a
given protocol field. Maybe we need to define *some* protocol
hierarchy (like a (partial) OSI layered approach). Maybe we want to
separate the protocol matter in some sort of "profiles" like telecom,
Internet etc. Maybe we want to do a mix of all of this :)
Sorry, but I'm pretty sure you are really doing overkill on this topic
right now!!!
Context specific menus! Do you really have the time to implement this?
I wanted to find a solution which could be implemented in a reasonable
amount of time.
There are many other things in the GUI that are in definite need for
some rework too ...
Regards, ULFL