On 13/02/2014 15:04, Florian Weimer wrote:

Naming is fundamentally different. With that caveat, it would be possible to expose a socket-based interface, but application code would have to adhere to the platform naming convention.

When we prototyped this in the past then we used a new SocketAddress type for naming. In general, this requirement has been around for a long time, it just has never been high priority so this is why it hasn't been done.

-Alan.

Reply via email to