Re: [RFC] [DCCP]: Deprecate SOCK_DCCP in favour of SOCK_DGRAM

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>]

Em Tue, May 13, 2008 at 08:06:34PM +0300, Rémi Denis-Courmont escreveu:
> Le Tuesday 13 May 2008 19:59:35 David Stevens, vous avez écrit :
> >         Well, SOCK_STREAM/IPPROTO_DCCP then. :-) But it isn't really that
> > either, as Remi said.
> >         If you do a connect() on a UDP socket, it doesn't cease to
> > be a SOCK_DGRAM socket, so I don't really care about that distinction,
> > but if others do, that's ok with me. There are ACKs here, too, so maybe.
> 
> But connect() is a _non-blocking_ operation which merely sets the _default_ 
> destination (you can still sendto() someone else).
> 
> Using socket types blindly may also break applications using 
> getsockopt(SO_TYPE), if they exists (I think I wrote one once...) to 
> determine how to use a socket.
> 
> SOCK_DCCP was perhaps a bad idea, but SOCK_DGRAM seems worse. In the end, it's 
> more a matter of patching libc getaddrinfo than changing the kernel API 
> anyway. Did AIX not have a similar socket type as DCCP under a more generic 
> name by the way?

/me feels Deja Vu :-)

Lemme dig the URL for the discussion where SOCK_DCCP was discussed and
AIX was summoned, etc :-)

- Arnaldo