[MOBY-dev] RFC #1941 Asynchronous Service Call Proposal

[Edward Kawas]

I haven't said much ...

I like the idea of having verbs that describe actions.

Eddie 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: moby-dev-bounces at biomoby.org 
> [mailto:moby-dev-bounces at biomoby.org] On Behalf Of Pieter Neerincx
> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 8:47 AM
> To: Core developer announcements
> Subject: Re: [MOBY-dev] RFC #1941 Asynchronous Service Call Proposal
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Ok, this is just a minor comment. It's about the names for 
> the different SOAP methods. Currently proposed:
> 
> [servicename]_async
> [servicename]_poll
> [servicename]_result
> 
> It looks to me like they are a bit random. Off course they 
> could be just _a, _b and _c as well. For the way it will work 
> it won't matter, but since we will have these names for quite 
> some time, I would suggest something more logical.
> Async is the the service type, you poll (=verb) for the status
> (=noun) and you retrieve (=verb) the result (=noun). To me it 
> makes more sense if the methods are named after a verb that 
> describes the action that the SOAP method performs. So that 
> would mean something like this:
> 
> [servicename]_submit
> [servicename]_poll
> [servicename]_retrieve
> and maybe also:
> [servicename]_clean or [servicename]_remove
> 
> Just my 2c,
> 
> Pi
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MOBY-dev mailing list
> MOBY-dev at biomoby.org
> http://biomoby.org/mailman/listinfo/moby-dev