On Mar 28, 2013, at 7:36 AM, Evan Huus <eapache@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> - We need to keep '-2' around for the case where the user wants to do
> 2-pass analysis without any filtering.
Agreed, and that's still done/supported by the patch.
> - Buffering is unfortunately necessary behaviour, but still confusing.
> We should impose it only if the user explicitly asks for it (with -2).
I'm cool with that, or anything really - the reason I made it the default for '-Y' in the patch is because (1) in one-pass mode it would be identical to '-R' anyway so redundant, and (2) it seemed like the least-surprising behavior for the user in the sense that it would have the fewest issues/glitches.
> It's possible we may want to go as far as forbidding -R without -2
> just to enforce the conceptual distinction. This would have the
> advantage that then -R would *always* renumber packets, (while -d
> never does) which is at least a win for consistency.
Huh, that's an interesting suggestion. I kind of like it, because you're right that would at least be consistent with regards to the re-numbering stuff. But we'd be breaking people's bash/sed/whatever scripts that use the '-R' with tshark without the '-2'.
How about this: we make '-d' usable in one-pass or two-pass modes, based on '-2' etc.; and we make the '-R' automatically-and-only be for two-pass mode, implicitly enabling '-2'. I know you dislike tshark buffering unless explicitly told to do so, but I really think people don't perceive the difference of buffering vs. not in tshark except for the performance impact - what they perceive is whether the output is what they expected it to be. Making them add another option switch that basically means "make it work", is kinda silly. :)
-hadriel