I would personally prefer "payload" notion. It will be consistent with
Spring Integration terminology and some other messaging implementations.
2012/10/24 Rob Davies <rajdavies_at_gmail.com>
>
> On 24 Oct 2012, at 12:04, Nigel Deakin <nigel.deakin_at_oracle.com> wrote:
>
> > The word "payload" already implies the idea that it is a wrapped object,
> so I think unwrapPayload would be a tautology.
> >
> > However, having just checked the spec, I see that the word "payload" is
> my own invention. Although the word "payload" appears 45 times in the 2.0
> spec, it doesn't appear at all in the 1.1 spec. The term used in 1.1 is
> "body" (e.g. in methods such as clearBody()). This makes me wonder whether
> I should replace all references to "payload" with "body". So this new
> method on Message would become "getBody" and the receivePayload() methods
> on JMSConsumer would become receiveBody(). Hmm.
> >
> > Does anyone have any comments on that? Is a mix of "payload" and "body"
> OK, or should I make everything "body" consistently?
> >
>
> Although payload makes more sense to me than 'body' - for the sake of
> consistency - it would be better to make everything 'body' imho
>
> thanks,
>
> Rob
>
>