Ethereal-users: [ethereal-users] Re: [ethereal-dev] static vs dynamic column width
> (Cross-posted to ethereal-dev and ethereal-user)
It's "ethereal-users", not "ethereal-user" (hey, we've succeeded at
least a little - we *do* have more than one user :-)).
I'll retransmit my reply, with the complete copy of your message, for
the benefit of those on "ethereal-users" who care, although I think
we've only heard from the other Guy :-).
> For "Live" capture & display, if we start out with a static column
> size and don't resize, we won't be able to view all of the information
> should a longer line be written to the (for example) Info column. The
> text storage area may be larger, but the horizontal scroll bar won't
> take you to the end of the text string unless the column size has been
> adjusted.
"Info" is probably typically the rightmost field, so resizing it won't
cause other fields to move; I think that was the main complaint the
other Guy had. If so, making a special case for "Info" might be OK.
> I haven't played with the -S feature yet. I assume that you can
> select a frame for display, rather than having all of the frames just
> zoom by without being able to take a closer look. If so, actually
> seeing the data would be nice.
Yes.
> The other item which is related to this issue is the
> "Follow-the-Stream" changes. If this is going to put each of the actual
> application messages on an individual line rather than whatever-sized
> chunk of data TCP happened to blast out, then I won't be as worried
> about the full info string. Right now, you wouldn't see some commands,
> but if each application message gets a display line, then you'd only
> miss seeing some of the parameters rather than one or more entire
> messages. Could someone give me a few details on the follow-the-stream
> implementation?
>
> For the columns other than "Info", the default sizes are probably okay
> (meaning static width would be okay) during the capture, as they seem to
> have realistic values for the width.
>
> Regarding user's preference for column type/widths in a .preference
> file, perhaps we should just have a preference for static or dynamic
> sizes. Of course, you could do both, having a preference for static or
> dynamic for each column type, and even a preferred width.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Phil Techau
