Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: RTP player - a suggestion
From: Erik de Jong <erikdejong () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 19:58:22 +0200
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Alexis La Goutte <alexis.lagoutte () gmail com
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:33 PM, Jirka Novak <j.novak () netsystem cz> wrote:Hi,I disagree. Right now, the GTK RTP player is the only one that Iconsider usable. By comparison, the Qt RTP player only barely works, and is unusable if you're dealing with more than one stream. If these changes can improve the Qt >version to be about as good as the GTK version was/is, then perhaps breaking the GTK version is okay. But don't break/remove the GTK version *and* leave the Qt version less than fully functional.-- Peter BudnyMy thinking is that if fixing the Qt version without too much workmeans ditching the GTK version that is OK in the development track as the GTK version is still available in olderVersions. Hopefully a usable Qt version would be available before thenext release. I understand Peter, but I'm afraid it is not possible to change Qt code without touching GTK. The reason is that both depends on common files in ui/ (ui/rtp_stream, ui/tap-rtp* etc). When I started to work on Qt, it induced changes in common ui/ code and as consequence I broke GTK code. I might be wrong because my additional aim was to write common code for RTP analysis too (when you check the code for RTP analysis, you will again find multiple places with same functionality - GTK, Qt and TShark). Therefore I had to touch code in common ui/ directory more often than just RTP player related changes might require. On the other hand, I'm really afraid that changes for Qt will induce changes for GTK. The option could be copy all related ui/ files and split them for GTK and Qt. But I'm not sure whether it is good approach.For me, it can be a valid approach because we can to remove GTK... (in next release GTK is disable by default and i think for 2018, we remove GTK support...)
I'm afraid this thread kind of silently died, looks like it's a difficult thing to tackle ;-) In my opinion my suggestion earlier (https://www.wireshark.org/ lists/wireshark-dev/201703/msg00073.html) is the least invasive way to go about this. It won't harm legacy users and will promote code reuse.
Sincerely yours, Jirka Novak ____________________________________________________________ _______________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscr ibe____________________________________________________________ _______________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscr ibe
___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org> Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- Re: RTP player - a suggestion Erik de Jong (May 02)