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:[email protected]
