Stephen's non-nits

[gselander]

#380

[gselander]

This is a PR on top of the Stephen's-nits PR. The recent commit addressed this non-nit:

The intent here and all other message processing is that you carry out the processing in steps and if any step fail then you don't carry out the subsequent steps. Is that clear enough?

I'm not sure it's clear enough - esp wrt passing on EAD which can have side-effects that could be bad (e.g. if some identifier were stored even though message processing had failed for some reason). I think the EAD stuff is the only way that kind of thing might happen - if so, then maybe saying that EAD should only be passed to applications after all processing steps have succeeded might be right?

[gselander]

@sftcd Please check 7631715

[emanjon]

This is hard to review due to the overlap with the nits PR. The nits PR seems ready to merge, this is not.

[emanjon]

I looked at the commits 89b46cc and 5d6913d

They look good and ready to merge

[gselander]

Closing this in favor of #383