Wireshark · Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] LLRP dissector support

["Matt Poduska" <mpoduska.intermec@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

I'm just curious if anyone on the Wireshark development team has had a
chance to review this dissector recently. I'm interested to know if there is
anything else I should do to bring it into code compliance.

Thanks, Matt Poduska 

-----Original Message-----
From: wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Poduska, Matt
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 12:04 PM
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] LLRP dissector support

I've rewritten the guts of this dissector to remove all of the buffer
portability abstraction. A new patch has been added to the bugzilla case.
Please let me know if it's acceptable.

Thanks, Matt Poduska

-----Original Message-----
From: wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jaap Keuter
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 10:59 AM
To: mpoduska.intermec@xxxxxxxxx; Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] LLRP dissector support

Hi,

I have to refer back to my earlier statement: "the code is very hard to
read. 
I can't really comment beyond that.".
What John and you are asking is that we actually read it, understand it and
see how this could be accepted. That is the whole point.
If you would give it another go we are willing to give it a shot, just like
any other dissector.

Thanx,
Jaap

Matt Poduska wrote:
> Is there anything other than the use of the portability wrappers that 
> are preventing this dissector from being accepted (making the code 
> very hard to read and maintain)?
> 
> Please let me know what needs to change in the dissector in order to 
> be accepted.
> 
> 	- Matt Poduska
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jaap Keuter
> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 1:17 AM
> To: Developer support list for Wireshark
> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] LLRP dissector support
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Well, as the general comment states "the code is very hard to read". I

> can't really comment beyond that.
> If the code is reasonably written and understandable and adheres to 
> the coding guidelines found in README.developer it shouldn't be a big 
> problem getting it in.
> 
> Thanx,
> Jaap
> 
> John R. Hogerhuis wrote:
>> Jaap Keuter <jaap.keuter@...> writes:
>>
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>> I've been looking at this submission from the start, and frankly I 
>>> don't like it. It is like Ronnie says in 
>>> http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1957#c4, this 
>>> code is very hard to read, let alone maintain.
>>> I don't want to sign off on that and burden myself and other with 
>>> the maintenance chores. So I left it alone for another core 
>>> developer to eventually pick it up. It seems none is confident
enough to commit it.
>>>
>> Well that's a clear statement of the problem, thanks for the reply.
>>
>> It appears Matt is responding favorably to requests to make specific 
>> improvements. General criticisms about hard to read/maintain and how 
>> he has abstracted the message parsing are obviously harder to
address.
>> My understanding is that parts of the code are generated based on XML

>> descriptors of the binary protocol available from 
>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/llrp-toolkit (I am a developer for 
>> this
> project but not the LLRP dissector).
>> If the code could be simplified to avoid wrappers are there other 
>> issues for you or Ronnie that would stand in the way of commit?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -- John.

_______________________________________________
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
_______________________________________________
Wireshark-dev mailing list
Wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev