Wireshark · Ethereal-dev: Re: [Ethereal-dev] show hostname in window title - feature/patch submission

[Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear list,

since I'm mostly working on Unix platforms, I would find a very useful
to have 'en0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' in the window title. It could also
be an IP-address. On Unix you have normally short interface names
and IP-addresses are also not too long. So I think this would work on 
Unix.

I do understand that on Windows interface names are much longer and
the approach above seems not to be very useful.

But why do we have to do the same on both platforms? I could live
a solution which shows the interface name @ host name on Unix and
the current name on Windows.

Best regards
Michael

On Nov 24, 2004, at 22:18 Uhr, Ulf Lamping wrote:

> Hi List!
>
> I'm unsure if we should add this feature now. This seems to be an 
> often requested feature, but with some different mechanism ideas to 
> implement it.
>
> As this feature will affect overall Ethereal usability (at least in a 
> way), we should have to think about the general way this should be 
> dealt with.
>
> For example some things comes to my mind:
>
> a) putting the hostname to the window title will be pretty useless on 
> win32, as you don't use an X server here (so this will only be 
> interesting with VM-Ware or such, but that's quite a different thing).
> So i don't see any reason to add such a preference for win32 platforms 
> (and having a preference only on some platforms also isn't nice).
>
> b) adding another command line parameter will keep it up to the user 
> to solve the idea where to get the required info from, how to 
> encapsulate white space and alike
>
> c) putting the capture interface name into the window title will make 
> it complicated on win32, as we also have to decide which format of the 
> interface should be used (the devicename is really 
> unreadable/unusable)
>
>
> I hope this makes it some more obvious, why I don't see a quick and 
> easy way to handle this. There might be even more things to think 
> about, before we find a clean solution.
>
>
> What I really would like to avoid, is an "incremental" implementation 
> of this (so adding some small things every new release), as that's 
> confusing to the users and not a nice way to deal with the users.
>
> Regards, ULFL
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ethereal-dev mailing list
> Ethereal-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.ethereal.com/mailman/listinfo/ethereal-dev