drain, spout => sender, receiver?

[Jonathan Robie <jo...@redhat.com>]

Should we change the names of drain and spout? How about sender and 
receiver?

Jonathan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org

Re: drain, spout => sender, receiver?

[Rafael Schloming <ra...@redhat.com>]

Jonathan Robie wrote:
> Should we change the names of drain and spout? How about sender and 
> receiver?

Personally I like drain and spout for the examples. I think 
sender/receiver will get confused with similarly named utilities that we 
have/are planning.

I also think spout and drain more accurately describe what the programs 
actually do.

Spout isn't really a sender, it's a traffic generator, i.e. it's default 
assumption is that you're just trying to generate message traffic, and 
unless you tell it otherwise, it will make up messages on your behalf, 
whereas I would expect a "send" program to require you to supply it with 
content.

Similarly, draining a source/queue of messages is what the drain program 
does by default. It will read all messages from a source and then exit 
when that source is empty.

--Rafael


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache Qpid - AMQP Messaging Implementation
Project:      http://qpid.apache.org
Use/Interact: mailto:dev-subscribe@qpid.apache.org