Ethereal-dev: RE: [Ethereal-dev] ememification of tvb_get_tring() and friends

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 This list is no longer active.

From: "Maynard, Chris" <Christopher.Maynard@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 15:37:56 -0400
Since the "ephemeral" names are transitional only, I don't think it
matters too much, since eventually they will be renamed back to their
originals without the "ephemeral" designation anyway.  Or has that idea
changed?

The only other comment I would like to make is that if we do end up with
a 2nd set of functions designed to malloc() memory for the string (or
whatever the case may be), that the names are much more explicit.  For
example, I personally think that something like
tvb_get_malloced_string(), or perhaps even more simply
tvb_malloc_string(), are much clearer names for what this function would
do.  I think this makes things crystal clear that when this function is
called, memory will be allocated for the string, and it will therefore
need to be manually freed by the caller at some point.

Regards,
Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: ethereal-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ethereal-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ulf Lamping
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 2:30 PM
To: Ethereal development; ronnie sahlberg
Subject: Re: [Ethereal-dev] ememification of tvb_get_tring() and friends



ronnie sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@xxxxxxxxx>, Ethereal development
<ethereal-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb am 02.08.05 19:47:22:
> 
> Everyone happy with this naming convention   tvb_get_ephemeral_...()
> for the allocations with packet dissection allocation lifetime?
> 
> If not and someone has a better naming convention, it should really
> just be a matter of some sed magic to change it anyway.
> 

Hmmm, as my english vocabulary is quite limited, ephemeral sounds to me
like a place somewhere in a Tolkien novel ;-)

But I really can live with it. 

What about transient?

BTW: I had a quick look at the emem.c file. It seems to allocate memory
in chunks of 10MB, which might be a bit large. Is there a reason to use
such a large chunk? Wouldn't be 1MB enough to prevent countless g_malloc
calls? People with small capture files will loose a lot of memory unused
....

Regards, ULFL
______________________________________________________________
Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS!
Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193



-----------------------------------------
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the
sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, retention,
distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are
not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the
recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all
copies of this message. Also, email is susceptible to data corruption,
interception, tampering, unauthorized amendment and viruses. We only
send and receive emails on the basis that we are not liable for any
such corruption, interception, tampering, amendment or viruses or any
consequence thereof.