Re: [wsrm] editorial updates for 0.93

[Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>]

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: tom@coastin.com; trutt@fsw.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133