Wireshark · Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] RFD: Creating subdirectories in epan/dissectors/

[Graham Bloice <graham.bloice@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wireshark-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:wireshark-dev-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Evan Huus
> Sent: 30 August 2012 14:31
> To: Developer support list for Wireshark
> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] RFD: Creating subdirectories in
> epan/dissectors/
>
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Roland Knall <rknall@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Would you like to enforce a value for the minimum number of subsequent
> > files in the subdirectories?
>
> I would assume you'd need 5 or 6 files at least to make a folder
worthwhile,
> but I don't think that's a hard rule. None of the groups proposed for
the initial
> run have less than 14.
>
> > As I wrote the opensafety package, I would like to split it up a
> > little bit to make it more maintainable, as well as include two new
> > subdissectors, which use the openSAFETY protocol, but are not
> > necessarily part of it.
>
> For the subdissectors, it depends on how tightly they are bound to
> opensafety. If they could theoretically be carried on other protocols as
well
> then they shouldn't be grouped with it, but if they are restricted to
> opensafety (in the sense that they use some special fields or features
of
> opensafety and so actually couldn't be carried on, say, TCP, without
changing
> the protocol), then they can logically be grouped with it. Again,
probably not
> a hard rule, but a good guideline.
>
[Graham Bloice said]

Some folks have articulated the drawbacks (to them) of making these
changes but I haven't seen any actual advantages listed.  Can anyone list
them as they see it?