Talk:Input/output completion port

Commentary by an IP author, moved from article
IOCPs do not need a socket or file handle association. "A process requesting [...]" should be changed to "A thread requesting [...]" as "process" does not execute code - threads do. When working with IOCPs the caller IS notified of the completion of the request via WaitForSingle/MultipleObject(s). Contribution by - 66.235.40.185

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page not moved.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 15:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Input/output completion port → IOCP (API) — Disambiguation from Input/Output Control Program, which is also IOCP. I'd also like guidance on what to name that; tentatively I'm thinking of IOCP (IBM). I am only requesting that the IOCP page be renamed, not the Input/Output Compleetion Port page that it redirects to. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment you're doing it wrong. This WP:RM only concerns the page "Input/output completion port" which you are asking to rename. If you wish to disambiguate, write the other articles first, and then edit the page "IOCP" into a disambiguation page. There is no need to rename the redirect. If you wish an additional redirect to this page then just create one at IOCP (API). 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy close as wrong process. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As 70.29.210.155 says, this is a misformed request. The proposer wishes to rename the redirect page at IOCP, but the request they have raised is to rename the target page at Input/output completion port. I oppose both moves. IMO the correct action is to create a stub artcle for Input/Output Control Program, and add a hatnote pointing to it from Input/output completion port. If a third meaning for IOCP warrants an article, then when that third article is created we'll need a disambiguation page, but not before. However I wouldn't be in a rush to close this request, let's fix the problem first. Andrewa (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose If only for the unnecessary use of an acronym. --Labattblueboy (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
See Talk:IOCP for some other meanings of the acronym. Andrewa (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Is the hatnote in User:Chatul/I/O_configuration_program_(IOCP) in the proper format, and is that also the format that I use to update Input/output completion port once my article is moved out of the sandbox? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Good question! It depends on the eventual article title and redirect structure a bit, but it looks OK to me, and uses the correct template. I think it would be better to say for the IOCP API, rather than just for the API, but I think either meets the guidelines. See WP:hatnote for the guidelines on hatnote templates (but I think you already have looked there).


 * But the article title is certainly not in a good format, it should just be I/O configuration program or Input/output configuration program, not I/O configuration program (IOCP). We use parentheses for disambiguation, not for alternative titles, see Talk:Shechita. That is, the parentheses are not used unless the article title can have two meanings (even when an alternative is itself ambiguous). The proposed title for this article is not itself ambiguous. Andrewa (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. I'd also welcome any guidance as to the proper level of detail, on the discussion page for the renamed User:Chatul/Input/Output_Configuration_Program. Thanks. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

relation with winsock on windows platform
???? Jackzhp (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)