Mark Taylor wrote:
> However, since Al has already misunderstood what we've written,
> perhaps I'm being over-optimistic about the potential for confusion.
Maybe we're just being over-optimistic about how smart I am...
> ... how about making the following method name replacements:
>
> hub:
> notify[All]() -> sendVoid[All]()
> call[All]() -> sendAsynch[All]()
> callAndWait() -> sendSynch()
> client:
> receiveNotification() -> receiveVoid()
> receiveCall() -> receiveAsynch()
>
> not particularly elegant, but the best I can think of (other
> suggestions welcomed).
sendNotify[All]()
sendAsynch[All]()
sendSynch[All]()
recieveNotify[All]()
recieveAsynch[All]()
Maybe? Nothing wrong with the word "Notify" it conveys the right meaning.
> So, I'd like to solicit opinions from others on which of the above
> approaches is best. To summarise:
>
> 1. Leave notify()/call() methods as they are;
> Event and Request are terms only used in discussion of MTypes
I'd be happy with this...
> 2. Leave notify()/call() methods as they are;
> Remove general discussion of distinct Event/Request MType
> semantics
> (though *.event.* MTypes still exist)
I'd be happy with trhis...
> 3. Replace notify()/call() methods by overloaded send() method;
> Event, Request, Notify and Call may be used in discussion of
> MTypes
Yuck! I'd argue against this (if I have to)...
> 4. Replace notify()/call() methods by single send() method with
> delivery information in message envelope;
> Event, Request, Notify and Call may be used in discussion of
> MTypes
Yuck! I'd argue (heavily) against this (if I have to)...
> 5. Replace notify()/call() methods by sendVoid()/sendAsynch();
> Event, Request, Notify and Call may be used in discussion of
> MTypes
Happy enough with this...
> I am not implacably opposed to any of these, but my favoured options
> would be (in order) 1, 2, 5.
Probably the same order here (although I really don't like 3 and 4). I don't think there is anything wrong with the current scheme, I just think it needs more explanatory text. The linking between the different calls and the MType vocabulary in the draft is too weak. Just need a few sentences (under an obviously titled section heading) to explain whats going on. A fundamental rethink of the way the calls work, don't think so...
Cheers,
Al.
Received on 2008-05-13Z13:29:57