On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Takashi Kato <xxxxxx@ymail.com> wrote:

I will take some names from Aaron's specification so that no longer Unix-specific names. That seemed way better.

Excellent. Thanks.

I'm not sure these are _basic_ requirements. I don't use much socket however I've never written something like UNIX domain sockets or re-using socket. I believe these should be lower layer and for users who need more controls.

Yes, you're right. However, an API that is designed so that implementations can extend it to support things like Unix domain sockets, etc. without changing the basic design of the API might be better.