Hi list, First I'll try to explain why I looked at the packet deletion thing. I was looking at the Wish List and I found the following entry:
22. The ability to delete packets in the packet list. Of course we still need to define what we understand with deleting packets :) which is one of the reasons of this RFC. There's the possibility to Mark packets today. This does *not* affect packet dissection at all. I think Gerald meant to functionally remove a packet from a capture file, hence skipping it in subsequent (re)dissections. This implies that the outcome of dissection *may* differ from the initial dissection, as is the case with the "Decode As" feature. ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Tuexen | What about a feature which allows us to | hide all marked packets | or show only marked packets? I have been thinking at that, but then I realized that some packets influence the dissection. Marking a packet doesn't influence the dissection. | On 18. Feb 2004, at 18:56 Uhr, Richard Sharpe wrote: | | > On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Ulf Lamping wrote: | > | >> Olivier Biot wrote: | >> | >>> Hi list, | >>> | >>> I'd like to implement packet deletion. for many things deeting | >>> packets | >>> is *very* similar to marking and unmarking packets. I however have | >>> some questions, so I list some statements below: | >>> | >>> 1. If I delete a marked packet, I should unmark it too. | >>> 2. All (context) menu items on a deleted packet must be disabled, | >>> except for undeletion. | >>> 3. If a deleted packet is selected, its dissection tree must not be | >>> shown. | >>> 4. Deleting packets in a capture may change the way a capture is | >>> dissected. For example, if I delete a WSP redirect packet, then the | >>> redirection conversation will not be built if the packets are | >>> processed again. | >>> 5. Because of 4. we may want to have a "redissect" button be active | >>> whenever we suspect something will change dissection. | >>> 6. Deleted packets "never" match a display filter. | >>> | >>> Comments are welcome! | >>> | >>> | >>> | >> What do you mean with packet deletion? See above: functionally skip a deleted packet from the packet list. In other words: dissect the captuer file as if the deleted packets were not present. | > I think he means to mark them as deleted. That's the way I want to implement it by adding a 'deleted' flag to the flags struct, similar to the 'visited' and 'marked' flags. I already have written some proof-of-concept code which I will send after the 0.10.1 release. | >> Do you want to simply hide the packets, or really remove them from the | >> capture file? | > | > I don't think it will be easy to delete them from the capture file. We | > will have to write the capture file out again to do this. Physically deleting packets from the capture file can always be done with the "Save As" function, indeed. In-place deletion of packets is another story. Regards, Olivier _______________________________________________ Ethereal-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ethereal.com/mailman/listinfo/ethereal-dev
