Ethereal-dev: Re: [ethereal-dev] Proposing some ethereal projects ...

Note: This archive is from the project's previous web site, ethereal.com. This list is no longer active.

Date Index Thread Index Other Months All Mailing Lists
Date Prev Date Next Thread Prev Thread Next
From: John McDermott <jjm@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 10:59:37 -0600
Jeff Foster wrote:
> 
> I understand that the color filters in general need to have the UI
> improved.  

I wrote them and I agree wholeheartedly.  The UI was just an easy way to
get things started.

>           But I think that popping the standard color dialog in the
> packet list right click  'Colorize Display' option is wrong.  I expect
> a simpler dialog that will colorize the top level protocol for that
> packet.  For example if the packet selected is SMB, the filter dialog

I disagree here, though.  You may want to colorize top level protocols,
but for me that is fairly uncommon: I wan to colorize layer 3/4 stuff
when I'm teaching (green arp, red tcp, blue udp, etc) or specific
traffic (orange DNS responses from 10.4.0.2) when I'm debugging.

> would already have a filter name, for example the top protocol name,
> the filter text would be set to the top level protocol,  and the user
> would just enter the foreground and background color information.

I like the idea and it would be simple to use, but I don't think "top
level protocol" is necessarily the right thing to put in there as the
filter or name.  I thought of making a name out of the protocols, but
when I entered complex filters, generating the names was difficult.

Maybe we need some way to select the important features of a packet. 
One option might be to use a method similar to Match Selected, but
allowing selection of multiple fields (or can we do that and I just
can't figure out how?).  That puts a filter in the display filter dialog
which could instead be put into the colorization filter dialog with
either a bogus name or no name.  If no field is selected (as is the case
now), no filter would be entered in colorize's filter dialog and the
user could supply one.  This would allow both the current behavior and
your desired behavior.

I'm just back from out of the country so I don't have time to make the
change now, but it could be made in two phases:
1) put the current selected packet field (if any) into the colorize
dialog for the filter
2) (if necessary) extend the field selection to multiple fields


--john

-- 
John McDermott, Writer and Consultant
J-K International, Ltd.
V +1 505/377-6293  F +1 505/377-6313
jjm@xxxxxxxxxx