[João Valverde <joao.valverde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 09/10/2015 10:13 PM, Jo�o Valverde wrote:
> On 09/10/2015 09:51 PM, Jo�o Valverde wrote:
> > On 09/10/2015 09:05 PM, Pascal Quantin wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > 2015-09-10 13:50 GMT+02:00 Jo�o Valverde
> > > <joao.valverde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > <mailto:joao.valverde@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>:
> > >
> > >     Hi list,
> > >
> > >     I proposed a change[1] to remove the duplication for resolved
> > >     addresses (not necessarily using that code) in the UI:
> > >
> > >        Src: 192.0.2.1, Dst: 192.0.2.2
> > >
> > >     Instead of:
> > >
> > >        Src: 192.0.2.1 (192.0.2.1), Dst: 192.0.2.2 (192.0.2.2)
> > >
> > >     This change (rightfully) raised concerns that it would break
> > >     backward compatibility for scripts parsing this output. Any thoughts
> > >     on this?
> > >
> > >     Just thinking out loud but maybe 2.0 would be a good opportunity to
> > >     change this (if indeed it is an improvement)?
> > >
> > >     If I understand the issue correctly I personally don't think this
> > >     should be a stable interface anyway but of course I'm willing to be
> > >     corrected on that.
> > >
> > >     Next step after this would be doing the same for port resolution...
> > >
> > >     Regards,
> > >
> > >     Jo�o V.
> > >
> > >     [1] https://code.wireshark.org/review/#/c/10203/
> > >
> > >
> > > Just a random thought (as I'm far from being a script expert). In case
> > > only one of the 2 IP address is resolved, would it be harder to parse?
> > >    Src: 192.0.2.1, Dst: localhost (127.0.0.1)
> > > The "advantage" of current code (whether it is relevant or not is an
> > > exercise left to the reader) is that you will always find the IP address
> > > (or port number) within parenthesis, whatever your preference
> > > configuration. On the other side, it is not really pretty to the eye.
> >
> > Good point. I would take that format, no problem, but it might be worth
> > having an exception in that case (would need to investigate the code
> > feasibility).
> >
> > I personally don't use address resolution (which is not relevant at all
> > to the argument).
> >
> > What I think is relevant is that for long, randomish IPv6 addresses it
> > really starts to get cumbersome for humans to parse. And takes a lot of
> > screen real-estate.
> >
> > Having said that there may be other factors I'm missing, I don't use any
> > automated output parsing either.
>
> Reflecting on what you said makes me think that a much better way to
> implement this than my proposal would be to remove the duplicate
> addresses if the preference/settings for address resolution is disabled
> (for the GUI at least).

So if I implement this using the GUI preference for name resolution 
where does that leave tshark? Unchanged?

Thanks.

> > Regards,
> >
> > JV
> >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Pascal.
> > >
> > >
> > > ___________________________________________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> > > Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
> > >
> > > mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>              mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe