[BXXPwg] rename MSG to REQ

Gabe Wachob gwachob@wachob.com
Mon, 11 Dec 2000 18:11:52 -0500


Didn't the MSG message *used* to be REQ? What was the reasoning behind
changing this? I understand why RSP was changed to RPY and ANS/NUL, but its
not entirely clear why REQ -> MSG....

	-Gabe

On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 01:56:24AM +0100, Wolfgang Hoschek wrote:
> At the rist of sounding picky, in draft 08, I believe the teminology
> surrounding "MSG" and "message" is unncessearily overloaded. 
> 
> A message is a very generic concept, and in the the BEEP context can be
> of various kinds: MSG, RPY, ANS, ERR, NUL, SEQ. In oral conversation
> about BEEP (and also to a lesser extend in code, mails, doc) it is hard
> to differentiate between MSG and message. Hence people reside to
> constructs such as "message of type MSG".
> 
> Person X to person Y: "I received a message and didn't know how to
> process it"
> Person X to person Y: "I received a MSG and didn't know how to process
> it"
> Person X to person Y: "I received a message of type MSG and didn't know
> how to process it"
> What does it mean? Just say it aloud to hear that there is no difference
> (or it doesn't make sense).
> 
> As another example, trying to implement beep, one almost inevitably
> comes across idioms like
> 
> handle(Message msg)
> handle(Message message)
> handle(MSG message)
> or similar.
> 
> Renaming "MSG" to "REQ" (or similar) would do away with these
> difficulties. It would encourage a well understood vocabulary,
> disambiguate conversation and increase usability.
> 
> If this could be cleaned up as long as it is still possible, it would
> help. IMHO, with BEEP implementations still in their early stages this
> seems (still) easy to do, while it would be very hard at some late point
> in time.
> 
> Regards,
> Wolfgang.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> BXXPwg mailing list
> BXXPwg@lists.invisible.net
> http://lists.invisible.net/mailman/listinfo/bxxpwg