Sunil Kunisetty wrote:
>>
>> We already have the term Reply pattern. Are you suggesting to change
>> the name to signalling pattern?
>>
>> <JD> no, not at all. But now that you mention it, it seems to me that
>> these "Messaging Models" are nothing else than our "Reply Patterns"...
>> So shouldn't we use in fact "Messaging Reply Pattern" (English expr,
>> not the element name ReplyPattern) to designate each of the three
>> models,
>> in this Messaging Model section (instead of my Signaling Patterns)?
>> At the very least the current spec is guilty of not explicitly
>> refering to each
>> of these "messaging models" when introducing the reply patterns.
>>
>
> I agree with Jacque here. I always felt that "Message Models" is
> confusing
> as we are not explaining MEPs or IO patterns rather the reply patterns
> in that particular section.
>
> So I second the notion to rename it to "Message Reply Patterns".
> (ps: I prefer to Message to Messaging).
>
I fully agree with this name change for the section
> -Sunil
>
--
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt email: ;
Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
