> I think that NetworkProtocol is a fine name.  I would never think
> that it only meant TCP or IP.  In this case, you don't need an
> object to implement TCP or IP because they are provided by the 
> operating system, but wouldn't you do it this way if you had to?

	I'd do it in Smalltalk, but I wouldn't use Correspondent subclasses... Oh yeah, I just remembered that there's an OSI term for what Correspondents speak: "session protocols". Duh (to use vernacular protocol :).

 I think it's important to be able to discuss session protocols distinctly from transport protocols (i.e., to have a name for what Correspondents speak which is different than the one for what ExternalResources speak).


-C


--
Craig Latta
composer and computer scientist
craig.latta at netjam.org
www.netjam.org
latta at interval.com
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]