Talk:Datagram socket

Merge

Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing scope distinction; Merge destination re-proposed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, as an argument has been presented for scope independent of network socket. Klbrain (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Datagram socket article does not distiguish itself from any other kind of network socket. Is there any justification to maintain a separate article for Datagram socket rather than merge into network socket#Socket types? Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think, "datagram socket" and Stream socket (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) should be merged to network socket, not to other destinations nor to remain standalone. Sockets are an API and OS concept, and do not correspond exactly to packets and protocols in the sense of the packet commuting technology. Standalone articles would have little merit, because it is nothing special to say about "stream" and "datagram" sockets but to explain differences, which is one of tasks of the "network socket" article. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Its relevant both with Datagram scope as well as Socket scope. - But it should have its own scope since many to one relation it has with its parent scopes. - It should be accessible from Datagram as well as Socket. - Finally a bit more elaboration is needed for it i guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsdas (talk • contribs) 06:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A datagram socket can be used for IPC or for networks, therefore this article should not be merged into the network socket article. This article (Datagram socket) is needed for disambiguation for readers who are inquiring into datagram sockets within the context of Unix domain socket types for IPC. Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Types of connectionless sockets

This article states that a datagram socket is "a type of connectionless network socket". What makes this type of connectionless network socket special or distinct? Are there other types of connectionless network sockets? If so, how many are there? What are their names? How would other sockets be different? Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

A datagram socket is certainly a notable and distinct kind of socket, and I think it is notable enough to deserve an article. --Neilc (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasted

Since when has 'broadcasted' been a member of the English language?Examinator (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]