call( ) and (incorrect?) argument order

[Alasdair Allan]

Mark Taylor wrote:
> Currently we have
>
>    notify              (recipient-id, message)
>    notifyAll           (message)
>    call                (recipient-id, message, msg-id)
>    callAll             (message, msg-id)
>    callAndWait         (recipient-id, message)
>
>    receiveNotification (sender-id, message)
>    receiveCall         (sender-id, msg-id, message)
>
> Maybe we should rationalise it a bit more and have
>
>    notify              (message, recipient-id)
>    notifyAll           (message)
>    call                (message, recipient-id, msg-id)
>    callAll             (message, msg-id)
>    callAndWait         (message, recipient-id)
>
>    receiveNotification (message, sender-id)
>    receiveCall         (message, sender-id, msg-id)
>
> which looks a bit tidier and less haphazard.

That seems back to front to me, having the message last seems  
reasonable. But maybe I'm mapping too much onto paper letters...  
where you have the recipient-id (the address) first... ;)

> Any opinions?  If people are not particularly keen I'm happy to go  
> with
> Al's original suggestion of just switching msg-id and message in  
> call(),
> though we should do the same thing in callAll() at the same time
> (or alternatively just flip them in receiveCall() instead).

For information, in the pre-alpha hub I shipped last week I flipped  
the msg-id and message in call( ) and callAll( ). I'm happy either  
way though...

Al.