Details on Product SOAP-JMS Binding specification
All Issues
New issues for this product are notified to public-soap-jms@w3.org (ask sysreq@w3.org to set it to a different list).
There are 60 issues listed in the system.
| ID | State | Title | Raised on | Product | Open Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ISSUE-1 Assert Protocol-2013 is spurious |
CLOSED | Assertion Protocol-2013 is missing RFC 2119 language | 2009-07-27 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-2 Protocol-2020 is spurious |
CLOSED | Assertion Protocol-2020 missing RFC 2119 language | 2009-07-27 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-3 Protocol-2023 is spurious |
CLOSED | Assertion Protocol-2023 missing RFC 2119 language | 2009-07-27 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-4 Protocol-2024 needs restructuring |
CLOSED | Protocol-2024 does not include RFC-2119 language, has large associated table | 2009-07-27 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-5 Protocol-2035 is redundant |
CLOSED | Protocol-2035 is redundant | 2009-07-27 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-6 Protocol 2039 redundant |
CLOSED | Protocol 2039 redundant, missing RFC 2119 language | 2009-07-28 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-7 Protocol-2041 is spurious |
CLOSED | Protocol-2041 is spurious | 2009-07-29 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-8 Incorrect example, section C2 |
CLOSED | Example in C2 contrary to Protocol-2029 | 2009-07-29 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-9 |
CLOSED | Clarify wording of assertions that deal with fault subcodes | 2009-08-10 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-10 redundant assertions 2016 and 2017 |
CLOSED | Combine redundant assertions 2016 and 2017 | 2009-08-10 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-11 requestURI in response message? |
CLOSED | Should SOAPJMS_requestURI be in the response message? | 2009-08-24 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-12 Bad MIME terminating boundary |
CLOSED | MIME multipart terminating boundary incorrect in Example C2 | 2009-09-15 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-13 Extra space in Schema |
CLOSED | Soapjms schema issue | 2009-09-23 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-14 WSDL conformance statements missing |
CLOSED | Apparently normative statements about WSDL are not written that way. | 2009-09-29 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-15 Incorrect use of RFC keywords |
CLOSED | WSDL section of spec uses RFC 2119 keywords inappropriately | 2009-09-29 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-16 non-existent "soap" prefix |
CLOSED | Section 3.4.5 refers to a non-existent "soap" prefix | 2009-10-20 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-17 References to RFC 3987 |
CLOSED | References to RFC 3987 are incorrect, not consistent with expected use | 2009-10-26 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-18 consistency of references, acronyms |
CLOSED | consistency of references, acronyms | 2009-10-26 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-20 Statement 3004 lacks context, RFC 2119 keywords |
CLOSED | Statement 3004 lacks context, RFC 2119 keywords | 2009-10-26 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-22 mphillip |
CLOSED | Errors in Appendix C2 - MTOM example | 2010-01-25 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-23 mphillip |
CLOSED | What to do with start parameter in contentType | 2010-01-25 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-24 mphillip |
CLOSED | Precedence rules for jndiContextParameter | 2010-01-25 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-25 mphillip |
CLOSED | URI example for jndiContextParameter | 2010-01-25 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-26 mphillip |
CLOSED | Encoding URI parameters for use in WSDL | 2010-01-25 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-27 mphillip |
CLOSED | Link to URI specification is incorrect | 2010-01-25 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-28 |
CLOSED | topicReplyToName is missing from WSDL schema and the "Binding of Properties to URI" table | 2010-02-26 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-29 |
CLOSED | In 2.6.2.3. the behaviout of the responding node is too prescriptive about the destination to which the response must be sent | 2010-02-26 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-30 |
CLOSED | The URI is not explicitly mentioned in the precedence rules for WSDL 2.0 | 2010-03-02 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-31 |
CLOSED | soapjms:isFault typing is ambiguous and its value is weakened because it is an optional property | 2010-03-02 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-32 Protocol-2015 too vague |
CLOSED | Protocol-2015 too vaguely worded, probably unnecessary | 2010-03-15 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-33 |
CLOSED | Assertion 'Protocol-2014' is probably unnecessary | 2010-03-30 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-34 Fault sub-code QName |
CLOSED | XML Schema should define fault sub-code QName types | 2010-05-17 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-38 WSDL 2.0 --> non-normative |
CLOSED | WSDL 2.0 support not going to be properly tested by implementations, so should be non-normative. | 2010-06-07 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-39 Protocol 2038 & correlation ID |
CLOSED | Please don't rely on JMSMessageID for Protocol 2038 | 2010-06-16 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-40 m:MaxTime in example |
CLOSED | broken and useless reference to m:MaxTime in example in section 2.8 | 2010-06-28 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-41 Editors list wrong |
CLOSED | Editors list wrong | 2010-07-09 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-42 Abstract needs improvement |
CLOSED | Abstract includes RFC 2119 keyword, fails to mention WSDL | 2010-07-12 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-43 Unflagged assertion re all props |
CLOSED | Spurious unflagged assertion about all properties in section 2.2 | 2010-07-12 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-44 MAY assertion re: props definition |
CLOSED | No need to say where a property MAY appear | 2010-07-12 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-45 jndiContextParameter has unflagged RFC 2119 |
CLOSED | jndiContextParameter has unflagged RFC 2119 keywords, at least one is spurious | 2010-07-12 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-46 replyToName spurious assertion |
CLOSED | replyToName has "SHOULD" assertion about where the message should be sent. | 2010-07-12 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-47 topicReplyToName unflagged assertions |
CLOSED | topicReplyToName has two unflagged assertions, some inappropriate. | 2010-07-15 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-48 unflagged message body assertions |
CLOSED | Unflagged assertions about message body and content type | 2010-07-16 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-49 unflagged xml encoding assertion |
CLOSED | Unflagged assertion about ignoring XML encoding declaration | 2010-07-16 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-50 Missing SOAP 1.1 indication |
CLOSED | Apparently redundant statements are about different versions of SOAP | 2010-07-16 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-51 redundant assertions about message body |
CLOSED | Protocol 2034 & 2040 are redundant normative statements about the message body format | 2010-07-16 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-52 bogus RFC 2119 keyword in table describing JMSReplyTo |
CLOSED | JMSReplyTo description includes inappropriate use of "must" in section 2.6.1.1 | 2010-07-16 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-53 Missing case in transition description |
CLOSED | Section 2.6.1.3 missing description of what to do on failure | 2010-07-16 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-54 Unflagged SHOULD about JMSDeliveryMode |
CLOSED | Unflagged SHOULD about JMSDeliveryMode - not normative | 2010-07-16 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-55 redundant statements about one-way MEP |
CLOSED | Section 2.7.2 restates constraints laid out in [SOAP 1.2 Part 3: One-Way MEP], and almost certainly shouldn't | 2010-07-16 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-56 Unflagged assertion about @transport value |
CLOSED | @transport value assertion not flagged, should be | 2010-07-16 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-57 Unflagged assertion about JMS destination |
CLOSED | @location attribute assertion about being a JMS Destination, but not flagged. | 2010-07-16 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-60 lacking complete WSDL example |
CLOSED | No complete WSDL sample in spec | 2010-08-24 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-61 SOAP samples problems |
CLOSED | Problems with SOAP samples in Appendix C | 2010-08-24 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-62 Derek |
CLOSED | No fault subcode is defined for soapjms:targetService | 2010-09-14 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-65 EXI compatibility |
CLOSED | Allow EXI as characterization for XML in the JMS body ? | 2010-11-09 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-67 |
CLOSED | Need a SOAP 1.2-specific SOAP/JMS transport URL value | 2010-11-22 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-68 Bad JMS example |
CLOSED | Broken JMS header properties example code | 2010-11-23 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-69 |
CLOSED | Ambiguity in spec. and potential interoperability problem with BytesMessage payload | 2010-12-16 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
| ISSUE-70 Derek |
CLOSED | The spec should clearly state that vendors must support both BytesMessage and TextMessage. | 2011-01-11 | SOAP-JMS Binding specification | 0 |
All Actions
There are 0 actions.
See only open and raised issues and actions.