it doesn't bother anyone else that you deal with unix sockets through something named "tcp.Port"? "TCP" has quite a specific meaning, after all, and unix sockets are neither dependant on nor a subset of TCPness... My first impulse would be to rename the tcp module to 'socket', but that would probably b0rk stuff horribly due to collisions with the standard 'socket' module. -- "The naming of hosts is a serious matter, not just one of your holiday games..." -- RFC 2100, "The Naming of Hosts"
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Kevin Turner wrote:
it doesn't bother anyone else that you deal with unix sockets through something named "tcp.Port"?
Given that nobody answered your message, I'm going to guess "no" :)
"TCP" has quite a specific meaning, after all, and unix sockets are neither dependant on nor a subset of TCPness...
UNIX sockets have the same semantics as TCP sockets; unlike, say, UDP sockets. I think that it makes sense to group them together, especially since UNIX sockets are effectively an 'extension' to TCP sockets that's only available on UNIX os's.
My first impulse would be to rename the tcp module to 'socket', but that would probably b0rk stuff horribly due to collisions with the standard 'socket' module.
Indeed it would. As I mentioned, the choice of naming was for the semantics of TCP. I suppose I could have called the module 'twisted.internet.streamed_ordered_garuanteed_delivery', but 'tcp' seems more succinct :). ______ __ __ _____ _ _ | ____ | \_/ |_____] |_____| |_____| |_____ | | | | @ t w i s t e d m a t r i x . c o m http://twistedmatrix.com/users/glyph
participants (2)
-
Glyph Lefkowitz -
Kevin Turner