Re: The attribute formerly known as "name"

+1, I think "role" would be confusing with SOAP role.

Glen Daniels wrote:

> 
> Thanks for pulling this together, Amy.
> 
> I think (as mentioned on the call) that any use of "role" is inappropriate for naming messages in patterns, since there is already a concept of "role" which encompasses the parties involved in the pattern as opposed to the messages.  "messageRole" is a little more descriptive than "role", but still potentially confusing I think.
> 
> "messageName" seems good to me, since that's what it is - the name of the message in the pattern spec.  "messageReference" (or "messageRef") would be good as well, since it makes it clear that this is a reference to an external document.
> 
> --Glen
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Amelia A. Lewis [mailto:alewis@tibco.com] 
>>Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 12:19 PM
>>To: WS Description List
>>Subject: The attribute formerly known as "name"
>>
>>
>>
>>Dear folks,
>>
>>As promised, here is a list of suggestions to rename the 
>>attribute "name", when it appears on the elements "input", 
>>"output", and "fault". 
>>This list of proposed replacements is in accord with issue 
>>77, which suggested that this instance of the usage of "name" 
>>as an attribute was not consistent with other usages 
>>throughout the specification.
>>
>>Several proposals for replacement were made on the 4 
>>September teleconference.  Please respond to this email using 
>>preference voting, indicating your top three preferences 
>>(number them 1, 2, and 3, please).  I'll try to tabulate 
>>responses that I receive (either publicly or
>>off-list) immediately before the teleconference next week.  
>>Note that you are free to propose an alternative not listed 
>>here as well.
>>
>>role
>>
>>messageRole
>>
>>messageType
>>
>>messageName
>>
>>messageReference
>>
>>message
>>
>>reference
>>
>>identifier
>>
>>Amy!
>>(that's my name, not a proposal ...)
>>-- 
>>Amelia A. Lewis
>>Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
>>alewis@tibco.com
>>
> 
> 

Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2003 08:34:41 UTC