On Tue, 13 May 2008 08:28:53 +0100, Gerrit Renker <gerrit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > There is an API and an address resolution problem involved in specifying a > separate/distinct socket type `SOCK_DCCP'. (...) > Having also seen the work-arounds in programs that other people wrote, > I believe that the above change will make it in the long term easier for > people to write DCCP-enabled applications. DCCP clearly fails the POSIX definition of SOCK_DGRAM in different ways. I think this is not a good idea. > It also relieves the libc writers from having to support another socket > type. As long as SOCK_DCCP-or-whatever is not automatically selected when ai_socktype is nul, this should be both easy to implement in libc *and* backward compatible (applications will not try to use DCCP implicitly). > A quick look at SCTP shows that they also did not introduce new socket > types, relying on the existing SOCK_STREAM/SOCK_SEQPACKET ones. But they follow the semantics for them. > It might be still early enough to resolve this, before it is widely used > and can then only be supported via work-arounds. > > I can't see a disadvantage here and the only work required is to update > that > datagram-based not automatically means connection-less. > > Is there support for this change or are there reasons to keep SOCK_DCCP? Maybe the name SOCK_DCCP sucks, but I think DCCP needs a "new" socket type anyway. -- Rémi Denis-Courmont http://www.remlab.net -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
