IRC log of soap-jms on 2008-07-15

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:42:57 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #soap-jms
15:42:57 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:43:38 [Roland]
Roland has changed the topic to:
15:45:13 [Roland]
Zakim, this will be WS_SOAP-JM
15:45:13 [Zakim]
ok, Roland; I see WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM scheduled to start in 15 minutes
15:45:53 [Roland]
Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference
15:46:10 [Roland]
15:46:25 [Roland]
Chair: Roland
15:46:43 [Roland]
rrsagent, make minutes
15:46:43 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Roland
15:46:55 [Roland]
rrsagent, make log public
15:57:32 [peaston]
peaston has joined #soap-jms
15:57:40 [Zakim]
WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has now started
15:57:47 [Zakim]
15:57:59 [alewis]
alewis has joined #soap-jms
15:59:06 [Zakim]
15:59:09 [Zakim]
15:59:11 [Zakim]
16:00:14 [Zakim]
+ +1.781.999.aaaa
16:00:31 [Phil]
Phil has joined #soap-jms
16:00:32 [Derek]
Derek has joined #soap-jms
16:00:48 [Roland]
Zakim, aaaa is peaston
16:00:48 [Zakim]
sorry, Roland, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
16:01:09 [Zakim]
16:01:30 [Zakim]
16:01:45 [CGI787]
CGI787 has joined #soap-jms
16:02:10 [CGI787]
CGI787 has left #soap-jms
16:02:10 [Zakim]
16:02:16 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.454.aabb
16:02:38 [markphillips]
markphillips has joined #soap-jms
16:03:12 [eric]
eric has joined #soap-jms
16:03:38 [Zakim]
16:04:55 [markphillips]
scribe: markphillips
16:05:23 [markphillips]
chair: Roland
16:06:57 [markphillips]
TOPIC: First Public Draft
16:07:06 [Phil]
zakim, [IBM] is Phil
16:07:06 [Zakim]
+Phil; got it
16:07:23 [markphillips]
- has been approved - should be published next week
16:13:09 [markphillips]
Roland: xml schema has issued last call for 1.1 - SOAP/JMS WG has been invited to review it. In terms of relevance to SOAP/JMS this means checking that string, long, int, boolean, and anyURI are still appropriate for our use
16:13:38 [markphillips]
Eric: xsd:string may encompass a wider set of characters
16:14:18 [markphillips]
ACTION: markphillips to review the relevant parts of the XML Schema draft on behalf of SOAP/JMS WG
16:14:18 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - markphillips
16:14:48 [markphillips]
TOPIC: Testing the Assertions in the spec.
16:15:55 [markphillips]
Roland: How would we use the assertions as the basis for validating implementations of the spec.
16:16:24 [markphillips]
alewis: + Phil: No updates since last discussion
16:17:50 [markphillips]
Phil: Need to agree to what extent we need to implement the test suite. Does it need to be a packaged turnkey test suite for the vendors
16:19:05 [markphillips]
Roland: We need to validate that it is possible to build (multiple) implementations of this spec.
16:20:18 [alewis]
16:20:24 [markphillips]
Roland: e.g. does not need automation in the base test suite
16:22:42 [markphillips]
alewis: Who will provide the SOAP/JMS implementations? How will we provide the implementations? Which service provider will we run over?
16:22:45 [markphillips]
Roland: We do not have to provide the implementations - we just create the test suite
16:23:25 [markphillips]
alewis: We need to prove the test suite as well as the spec. and we need vendor implementations to demonstrate the test suite
16:24:06 [markphillips]
Phil: How do we prove the spec. using the test suite?
16:25:43 [markphillips]
Roland: If we have multiple implementations that produce the correct outputs according to the test suite, then we have demonstrated that the spec can be implemented
16:30:33 [Yves]
16:31:12 [markphillips]
Roland: The W3C process does not require that vendors demonstrate interoperabililty - just that the implementations implement the spec. (see above link )
16:31:28 [Yves]
16:31:41 [Yves]
16:31:43 [Yves]
Shown that each feature of the technical report has been implemented. Preferably, the Working Group should be able to demonstrate two interoperable implementations of each feature. If the Director believes that immediate Advisory Committee review is critic
16:31:53 [Yves]
al to the success of a technical report, the Director may accept to Call for Review of a Proposed Recommendation even without adequate implementation experience;
16:31:54 [Yves]
16:32:24 [Yves]
basically the WG has to define what interoperable means, and how it will be tested
16:32:30 [markphillips]
alewis: The specification basically asserts what goes through various API calls to exchange JMS SOAP messages
16:34:25 [Zakim]
16:34:43 [Zakim]
16:34:50 [markphillips]
Derek: We could meet w3c requirements with a get-together - even a virtual get-together
16:35:55 [markphillips]
Roland: We do not need to get together face-to-face to test w3c requirements (though that might be useful for interop. testing). It would be enough to share the results of our tests
16:37:43 [markphillips]
Roland: Testing that WSDL is interpreted correctly *is* in scope
16:37:59 [markphillips]
alewis: Support for WSDL is optional - how can this be in scope
16:38:08 [markphillips]
Roland: Where products support WSDL we must check that they have implemented it according to the spec.
16:40:48 [markphillips]
Roland: The WSDL section(s) must not remain in the final version of the specification unless it has been tested by at least one implementation
16:42:20 [markphillips]
TOPIC: Next version of specification
16:42:44 [markphillips]
Roland: The WG charter states that we should have a last call by September 2008
16:43:49 [markphillips]
This does not need to include coompletion of testing, but by the time we get to the Candidate Recommendation then we should have implementations
16:44:54 [markphillips]
Still outstanding :
16:44:55 [markphillips]
Phil made a suggestion on how we could add a non-normative description of the JMS API
16:45:12 [markphillips]
Roland has addressed the nits that Eric identified
16:46:24 [markphillips]
Eric has some work to detail what we mean be fully supporting the URI
16:46:24 [Roland]
16:51:43 [markphillips]
RESOLUTION: with reference to the email linked above - we do not need to add any more statements on ContentType and encoding of XML - testing / specifying the XML parser is outside the scope of these tests
16:52:50 [markphillips]
16:53:27 [markphillips]
TOPIC: Proposed JMS fragments
16:55:11 [markphillips]
Phil: For each property, the proposal (linked above) outlines the different JMS methods required to set the property
16:56:03 [markphillips]
Roland: Do we need to list all methods for setting a property, or just give one example?
16:59:19 [markphillips]
Eric: Suggest we just show a single example.
17:00:15 [markphillips]
Discussion whether we should avoid use of the word 'may' or 'should' because they imply RFC2119 compliance (because this is informative not normative)
17:01:12 [markphillips]
alewis: We SHOULD NOT use ambiguous synonyms for RFC2119 terms
17:04:22 [markphillips]
alewis: These words must be uppercase as per RFC2119
17:05:14 [peaston]
I have to leave, signing out
17:05:30 [Zakim]
17:07:06 [markphillips]
Roland: We should state that these examples are non-normative
17:08:04 [markphillips]
ACTION: Roland to check how we should make the disctinction between normative and non-normative
17:08:04 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-15 - Check how we should make the disctinction between normative and non-normative [on Roland Merrick - due 2008-07-22].
17:08:23 [Zakim]
17:08:24 [Zakim]
17:08:24 [Zakim]
17:08:25 [Zakim]
17:08:26 [Zakim]
17:08:31 [markphillips]
markphillips: We should stick to JMS 1.1 API's - not use the TopicPublisher
17:08:50 [Phil]
Phil has left #soap-jms
17:08:53 [Zakim]
17:08:56 [Zakim]
17:08:58 [Zakim]
WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has ended
17:08:59 [Zakim]
Attendees were alewis, Roland, +1.781.999.aaaa, peaston, Derek, Yves, +1.650.454.aabb, markphillips, eric, Phil
17:09:03 [markphillips]
rrsagent, generate minutes
17:09:03 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate markphillips
17:23:25 [eric]
17:32:10 [Roland]
Zakim, please part
17:32:10 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #soap-jms