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
