Talk:Payload (computing)

Computing: Networking / Security Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as High-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject Computer Security (assessed as High-importance).

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

French Translation ?

Did some of you have an idea how "Payload" could be translated in french ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.131.31.252 (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

This article is referring to two different concepts. One in networking and one in computing. There is already a payload disambiguation page. I propose this either needs to be split or deleted. --Kvng (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No Disambiguation

Although I understand Kvng's position above, i disagree. Since the definitions are rather short, I suggest to have the different meanings included in one article - just the way it is now! Disambiguations are more useful when there are long articles and many fundamentally different articles available. I kindly ask Kvng to reconsider his position and talk-contribution. --Nonchablunt (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this position. In both cases the payload is the semantically meaningful message content that two peering entities want to exchange. However, the source should be cited about the term "payload" being used in JSON and, as a general matter, besides the difference between "content" bits and "control" bits, and related issues, in informatic networks. If the usage of the "payload" term in computer programming cannot demonstrated, the "Programming" section in the current entry should be suppressed Vittorioolivati (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No stub

I think 'payload' is sufficiently defined. Instead of making this article longer, i suggest adding references to fitting, existing articles to avoid redundancies. Without anyone voicing disagreement I might remove the stub-tag soon. --Nonchablunt (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't consensus on the purpose and fate of this article - just two editors in disagreement. In addition the the concern I described above, there is also WP:NOTDICT. ~KvnG 17:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation from the "payload" concept in security vs. the "payload" concept in programming / networking

"Payload" as "the part of the private user text which could also contain malware" is a completely different concept from what differentiates the protocol overhead from the actual data, even if the first concept is of course a polysemic derivation of the second, as it is a piece of malware included in the payload of datagrams. Then the current entry should be splitted according the two different concepts. Vittorioolivati (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We actually have three different meanings covered here: security, programming and networking. The security meaning is similar to programming, programming is similar to networking but networking is removed from the security meaning. I don't think we want to split into three articles and I don't see an easy way to split it in two. One article seems to be the best solution for now. ~Kvng (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]