Re: The possibility of a curses based Wireshark

[Guy Harris <guy () alum mit edu>]

On Nov 28, 2014, at 2:23 PM, Stephen Fisher <sfisher () SDF ORG> wrote:

> Now that we've gone ahead and allowed C++ code into Wireshark after 
> years of resistance:), will we always require the user to have a C++ 
> compiler available?  That would simplify refactoring the code to call 
> GTK vs. Qt vs. any other UI-toolkit code.  We could have a single 
> main.cpp that displays common things like -h usage and -v version 
> information and then call the UI-toolkit specific code as necessary.

I'd call it wireshark.cpp, but, other than that:

        1) that eliminates the greasy hack we're doing with autotools to force the Qt Wireshark to be linked with the 
C++ library

and

        2) should let us (modulo toolkit-specific argv parsing) have more common code between Wireshark with different 
UI toolkits

so, if we're willing to have Wireshark always be a C++ program (even if it has a lot of C code in it), that sounds good 
to me.

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe