Douglas Pratley wrote: >> 2.) Packet Details / Copy item (only one Copy item in this menu): >> Description >> ------------------ >> Bytes (Offset Hex Text) >> Bytes (Offset Hex) >> Bytes (Printable Text Only) >> ------------------ >> Bytes (Hex Stream) >> Bytes (Binary Stream) >> > I agree that it would be good to combine the Copy / Copy Selected Bytes > menu items. I didn't for the first cut as I didn't want to interfere > with existing functionality. > Ack, keeping a contribution as simple as possible is a good idea - but now we're already in the second round ;-) > Is "Description" the right phrase? I find it vague, but can't think of > anything better. > Same problem I had. I also just don't know a good and suitable name here. Anyone else? > These items do something different to the ones from Menu (1); they copy > only the selected bytes. That is why they are "inconsistent" at the > moment. I agree that it is ugly to have them different, but is the > context of having a row within a packet enough to make it intuitive on > its own? > I guess so. This is a *context* menu, so it's ok in my eyes that the same entry at different places will copy different parts.
BTW: I disagree that "these items do something different". They copy the currently selected bytes in both cases, only the amount is different, namely corresponding to the selection. >> 3.) Packet Bytes / Copy item: >> The usability of this menu is completely odd, as you select >> things you don't want. >> With the new Details menu the dialog menu is completely >> obsolete - after some cleanup. Namely moving the "Export >> Selected Packet Bytes" item to Packet Details menu (shouldn't >> be too difficult?!?). We might also want to remove this >> export feature completely, as I guess that the "Copy" >> mechanism is what users really need ... >> > > Again, I was reluctant to change existing functionality; I think that we > should either drop the Copy and move the Export as you suggest, or else > duplicate the same Copy and Export functionality across both pop-ups > (either should be easy). > As the functionality doesn't work nicely in the Bytes pane, I'd vote to just remove it. We can add it later again if someone is shouting "foul" loud enough ;-) > The question is, is there anybody out there who is going to be upset if > we remove this functionality (or more accurately, move it and rename > it). I'd value a third opinion! > Well, removing *might* be a problem. My observation over the last years of Ethereal / Wireshark development is that anything that is changed, there's someone who will dislike it, regardless what your doing. >> BTW: Is the "Printable Text" a good idea? Wouldn't the "common" >> replacement of unprintable chars by dots be more common / >> helpful? Or is there even a need for both? >> > Don't know - quite possibly both - I actually think we could probably > do with more advanced functionality that copes with unicode text (UTF-8 > and UTF-16) as well. Steve F suggested being able to decode Base64 would > be useful. I hope that this patch will give a better baseline for all of > that if anyone gets the time to do it. > Ack, having a basic "copy" mechanism is a good idea. Don't know if an UTF-8 will work nicely on Windows, but that needs further investigation. > I'm tempted to leave it for a few days to let my documentation patch > work its way through and to let others comment (they've been quiet so > far); if they stay quiet I'll then implement your suggestions. > I guess, the first comments you'll get is when the 0.99.6 is released in a lot of weeks ;-) Regards, ULFL _______________________________________________ Wireshark-dev mailing list Wireshark-dev@wireshark.org http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-dev
