Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

2
  • This answer sort of avoids the question, which is, what is a good collective name for messages going from the client to the server and vice versa. This pops up all the time when you for example have commonalities between all client-to-server messages and need a name for a base class of such messages. ServerToClientMessage and ClientToServerMessage are the best alternatives I've come up with. Long (unfortunately) but quite clear. Commented Jul 8, 2024 at 6:49
  • @aioobe No, this answer rejects the premise of the question. There's a difference. I'm not addressing the question explicitly asked, but the flaw in the underlying thinking. What you propose is an obvious enough way to be clear about directionality, I just don't think directionality is the most important thing to communicate (in the sense that the name is still very generic and doesn't tell you what the class brings to the table, and the convention starts to break as soon as there's a need to have more than one of those). It smells of an ad hoc APIs, and by extension, system. Commented Jul 8, 2024 at 21:12