You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We currently have several events that can be used to indicate how QUIC packets are sent in UDP datagrams (quic:datagrams_sent, quic:datagrams_received etc.).
However, adding support for RFC9221 (Unreliable Datagram extension for QUIC), which adds the new DatagramFrame, causes some issues with the naming here.
For example, we also want a datagram_data_moved event in addition to the existing (stream_)data_moved event, but that would be ambiguous which "datagram" we're actually talking about (UDP datagrams or QUIC Datagram Frames).
Since we've renamed the transport category to quic (before it was transport:datagrams_*), it makes sense to rename these events to udp:datagrams_* as well for consistency and clarity.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We currently have several events that can be used to indicate how QUIC packets are sent in UDP datagrams (
quic:datagrams_sent
,quic:datagrams_received
etc.).However, adding support for RFC9221 (Unreliable Datagram extension for QUIC), which adds the new DatagramFrame, causes some issues with the naming here.
For example, we also want a
datagram_data_moved
event in addition to the existing(stream_)data_moved
event, but that would be ambiguous which "datagram" we're actually talking about (UDP datagrams or QUIC Datagram Frames).Since we've renamed the
transport
category toquic
(before it wastransport:datagrams_*
), it makes sense to rename these events toudp:datagrams_*
as well for consistency and clarity.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: