The point about inconsistent formatting is that by aligning a team(s) on how a message is formatted groups can avoid the introduction of multiple message formats between distributed services.
It's true the body field does introduce inconsistency and that's left for the application developers to resolve. The envelope fields are intended to be used in queuing and routing situations.
I disagree with "The destination doesn't need to be in the message". What about the use case where a message is forwarded or moves through proxy services?
+1 for metadata being larger than the payload :-D - Can't debate that. The only required fields are 'to', 'from' and 'body' and the short form of UMF can be used. Still, we've encountered situations where that metadata is still larger than the payload. But that doesn't completely invalidate the presence of the envelope in a distributed application.
Thanks, I really appreciate the time you took to offer feedback!
The point about inconsistent formatting is that by aligning a team(s) on how a message is formatted groups can avoid the introduction of multiple message formats between distributed services.
It's true the body field does introduce inconsistency and that's left for the application developers to resolve. The envelope fields are intended to be used in queuing and routing situations.
I disagree with "The destination doesn't need to be in the message". What about the use case where a message is forwarded or moves through proxy services?
+1 for metadata being larger than the payload :-D - Can't debate that. The only required fields are 'to', 'from' and 'body' and the short form of UMF can be used. Still, we've encountered situations where that metadata is still larger than the payload. But that doesn't completely invalidate the presence of the envelope in a distributed application.
Thanks, I really appreciate the time you took to offer feedback!