On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Jeff
Morriss
<jeff.morriss.ws@gmail.com>
wrote:
Kaul wrote:
> 3. Corrected hextile encoding parsing. It's quite
wrong the way it's
> done today (see 2nd rectangle in packet 23 of the
attached sample
> capture). It completely ignored the fact that the
hextile encoding is
> actually encoding a series of 16 by 16 pixel tiles
(hence hexTILE, I
> reckon). This presents another problem which I don't
know how to solve -
> I'm getting too many (legitimate!) items in my tree -
and wireshark
> thinks I'm in an infinite loop. The fact it, each
update may have
> several rectangles, each may have subrectables, each
may have tiles...
> it's endless if the screen is big enough.
Hmmm, are the items really of that much interest to a user?
I mean,
would someone really want to look at all 150,000 tiles (or
whatever)
one-by-one? I would guess not, in which case it would
probably make
sense to just have an item that says "150,000 tiles."
Well, it is interesting if you have few of them, to see how
the protocol really works. I guess I should stop adding them
at some point... first 100 or so? if it's smaller than a
packet size?
Nevertheless, one might want to find oddities in the
protocol implementation, and then he will need all of the
data.
Y.