Ethereal-dev: Re: [Ethereal-dev] packet-frame and the packet versus frame discussion

Note: This archive is from the project's previous web site, ethereal.com. This list is no longer active.

Date Index Thread Index Other Months All Mailing Lists
Date Prev Date Next Thread Prev Thread Next
From: "Ronnie Sahlberg" <ronnie_sahlberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 23:23:45 +1100
I would vote for keeping packet-frame.c the exception and keep it/convert it
to only refer to frames and not packets.

At least keep the "frame" display filter.
Many scripts I use would break if "frame" would be renamed to something
else.



From: "Ulf Lamping"
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 10:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Ethereal-dev] packet-frame and the packet versus frame
discussion


> Olivier Biot wrote:
>
> >Hi list,
> >
> >If I remember correctly from the discussions over the past 3 months,
> >we decided to talk about packets instead of frames. There's one odd
> >file called packet-frame.c where we're still talking about frames.
> >
> >Do we agree to replace "Frame" with "Packet" in this file?
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Olivier
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Ethereal-dev mailing list
> >Ethereal-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >http://www.ethereal.com/mailman/listinfo/ethereal-dev
> >
> >
> >
> You mean that the first line in the tree view will look like:
>
> "Packet 1 (62 bytes on wire, 62 bytes captured)"
>
> Currently, if you open the tree node, you get a funny mixture of packet
> and frame, e.g.: "Frame Number" but "Packet Length".
>
> I do agree on that change, what do others think?
>
> Regards, ULFL
>