Talk:Connection-oriented protocol

They are seperate entities within themselves but i see few reasons why you would want to look at one, without the other.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.55.64.98 (talk • contribs).

Oppose And how do you plan on organizing their combination? They are seperate entities, and there is no umbrella term.

Kashami 00:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The Connection-orarticle talks purely about connection-oriented protocols, whereas this article discusses not just the protocols, but a slightly more general use of the term. So, at very best, it looks like the two articles are the wrong way round. Not having a great deal of experience of editting Wikipedia, I'm not sure of the correct way to solve this. Should I just swap it around as I see fit, and then wait for comments/flames?

--W33v1l 08:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Having now read that I should be bold, I've decided to have a go at fixing the above. I have now removed my previous merge proposal, because I believe these edits have precluded such a move by providing a sufficient difference between the two articles. If anybody objects to what I have done, I'm sure they'll let me know! --W33v1l 16:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge into Connection-oriented communication
Regrding the suggestion to merge into Connection-oriented communication:
 * Support - of course. Same thing, and that article is more correct than this, since it also covers circuit switching. Mange01 (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)