2008/12/11 Ramon Buckland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Refresh my memory - what is it about wireTap that doesn't suit? (If >> you maybe swizzle your understanding of wire tap to be - send a copy >> of the same message to N destinations rather than just 2 :) >> >> > To me wireTap feels / sounds like a way to "tap into" a message, where the > *other* receivers are not the primary, ie, that there is one primary and > 'tapped to' endpoints are secondary. > > Think of MI5, FBI or AFP (aussie fed police) tapping your phone, they are > not the intended recipient of the message, but they get one (lots). > > In a loan broker example, where we call out to multiple loan providers, they > are all the intended recipient, so the wireTap seems though it is not suited > for this position, based on it's name. > > "I don't want to "wire tap" a message to them, I want to send to all." > > My current use of the <multicast> and in documentation I explain to others > kind of fits into a Blind (don't look at message) Recipient List. > > .. hope that makes sense. (and the icon fits) > http://www.eaipatterns.com/RecipientList.html
Yeah. Maybe we just add wireTap in and under the covers the implementation is kinda similar but we preserve multicast as a name? -- James ------- http://macstrac.blogspot.com/ Open Source Integration http://fusesource.com/
