MType vocabulary design principles

[Luigi Paioro]

> I don't think you are misunderstanding, I pretty much agree with your 
> description of how this all works.  To clarify though, at the level of 
> the protocol, the MTypes are opaque strings, so the progress of
> a given message and its response through the system is not affected
> by its structure (whether it's samp.app.status.progress or 
> samp.app.msg.status.progress).  The only exception to this rule of
> MType opaqueness at the protocol level is MType wildcarding if you want 
> to subscribe to a subtree of MTypes at once.

Thank you for the clarification.


> I agree with the spirit of this proposal - as you say, the progress
> is progress of a message/call, and not of the application itself.
> Using samp.app.status.progress for this would not actually break 
> anything, but it is less clear than what you're suggesting.
> 
> Of your alternatives, I would favour samp.app.msg.status.progress,
> or maybe just samp.msg.progress.
> 
> Mark
> 

Actually samp.msg.progress fits perfectly my personal mental pattern and
the "philosophy" of my last mail... I would favour it :)


Luigi