<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">On May 2, 2014, at 1:02 PM, meejah <<a href="mailto:meejah@meejah.ca">meejah@meejah.ca</a>> wrote:<br><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family: Menlo-Regular; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;">Another point for this is that "someday" tor will have UDP support...</span><br style="font-family: Menlo-Regular; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"></blockquote></div><br><div>There's a reason that the existing interfaces all have "stream" in their names :-).</div><div><br></div><div>The main reason we didn't do "datagram" at the same time is that there's a pretty clear client/server division in all stream endpoints (one side has to initiate, the other side has to respond) but given the possibilities for multicast / fan-out / fan-in with datagram sockets, "just do what UDP does" didn't seem obviously correct.</div><div><br></div><div>I'd love it if someone with an interest would make some datagram endpoint interfaces though.</div><div><br></div><div>-glyph</div><div><br></div></body></html>