On Jun 8, 2008, at 11:39 PM, Amit Paliwal wrote:
i mean from the declaration it becomes apparent that every sibling
node will be pointing to next sibling and the parent, why is this
required.
Sibling: otherwise, you can't enumerate all entries in the protocol
tree. The tree isn't N-ary for any fixed value of N; there can be any
number of entries at any level below the root.
Parent: so that, for example, if you add an "expert info" item to a
protocol tree item, that item *and* all items up to the top level can
be flagged as having "expert info" under them; this, for example, lets
a top-level item be put in a special color if there's an "expert info"
item anywhere below it.
is it a general tree or some specific kind of tree.
It's a specific kind of tree - it's a tree of data about packet fields.
/** A protocol tree element. */
typedef proto_node proto_tree;
/** A protocol item element. */
typedef proto_node proto_item;
what is the use of defining proto_tree and proto_item differently?
I'm not sure what the rationale was for that. Gilbert?
for each protocol how is this tree managed.
With routines such as proto_tree_add_item(),
proto_tree_add_protocol(), proto_tree_add_uint(), etc.
