Re: [wsrm] editorial updates for 0.93

[Sunil Kunisetty <Sunil.Kunisetty@oracle.com>]

 
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).

 -Sunil