Wireshark · Ethereal-dev: Re: [Ethereal-dev] [RFC] Combined dialogs for the differentconversations types

["Olivier Biot" <ethereal@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Ulf,

That's yet another invaluably great addition!

Do you think it's easy to present a framework in which it is easy to
"plug in" those statistics? That way it'd be a piece of cake to add
new statistics (currently only conversations, but maybe others will
follow soon 8^)

One question, though. In case you're working on rather large capture
files, then it'd be probably expensive to compute *all* statistics for
a given type. In this case, I'd suggest we still present the
individual statistics as they are available today, or maybe we can
defer the computation of the Ethernet statistics until the end-user
has clicked on this tab (implying that the first tab will always have
its statistics computed, unless that tab is explanatory only)? . Maybe
I am completely wrong here and the overhead is not significant; in
that case we can get rid of this remark :)

Regards,

Olivier

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Ulf Lamping

Hi List!

I'm often have TCP or UDP traffic that I like to investigate.

Currently I find it difficult to use the conversation dialogs, as
there is no good way to "navigate" through the dialogs (must open /
close a lot of them), to get an idea of the conversation relations.

Instead of opening/closing a lot of single dialogs, it would be much
easier to have a single conversation dialog, with notebook tabs for
the different conversation types (Ether, IP, UDP, TCP, ...).

I've tried to implement this to some extent, but didn't currently
check it in. I would like to hear from others, if this is the right
way to go, before (slightly) changing all the endpoint_talkers_xy and
a lot of other files.

Here is a screenshot of my investigations so far:

<screenshot>

Of course, some of the conversation types (FDDI, ...) are missing, but
that can be easily added.

To access this, a new menu item "Conversations" just below the current
item "Statistics/Protocol Hierarchy" would be appropriate.

Completely the same applies to the "Endpoint lists" too, but I didn't
started working on that topic.

Any comments?

Regards, ULFL