IRC log of soap-jms on 2008-09-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:50:15 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #soap-jms
15:50:15 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-soap-jms-irc
15:50:17 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:50:17 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #soap-jms
15:50:19 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SJMS
15:50:19 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM scheduled to start in 10 minutes
15:50:20 [trackbot]
Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference
15:50:20 [trackbot]
Date: 30 September 2008
15:55:19 [alewis]
alewis has joined #soap-jms
15:58:59 [peaston]
peaston has joined #soap-jms
15:59:42 [Zakim]
WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has now started
15:59:43 [Zakim]
+ +0196270aaaa
15:59:59 [Derek]
Derek has joined #soap-jms
16:00:36 [markphillips]
zakim, aaaa is markphillips
16:00:36 [Zakim]
+markphillips; got it
16:00:42 [Zakim]
+ +1.708.246.aabb
16:00:56 [markphillips]
agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Sep/0036.html
16:01:07 [Zakim]
+Peter_Easton
16:01:53 [markphillips]
Zakim, aabb is Derek
16:01:53 [Zakim]
+Derek; got it
16:02:18 [Zakim]
+[IBM]
16:02:18 [Zakim]
-[IBM]
16:02:18 [Zakim]
+[IBM]
16:02:25 [markphillips]
Regrets: Roland
16:02:39 [Phil]
Phil has joined #soap-jms
16:02:44 [Phil]
Zakim IBM is Phil
16:03:00 [Phil]
Zakim, IBM is Phil
16:03:01 [Zakim]
+Phil; got it
16:03:40 [Zakim]
+Yves
16:03:59 [Zakim]
+ +1.919.742.aacc
16:05:05 [eric]
eric has joined #soap-jms
16:06:17 [Zakim]
+[TIBCO]
16:07:08 [markphillips]
Scribe: Eric
16:07:18 [eric]
Chair: markphillips
16:07:51 [markphillips]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Sep/0035.html
16:07:59 [eric]
Topic: Use of TextMessage
16:08:16 [eric]
mark: phil please talk us through text message.
16:08:50 [eric]
phil: Agreeing with Eric that we don't need to explicitly say in the SOAP/JMS binding spec how a client would be told to use a bytes message or a text message.
16:09:04 [eric]
... instead we can be vague and leave it up to the vendor runtime to determine that.
16:10:09 [eric]
... also no changes needed in the URI scheme for the purposes of text messages.
16:10:35 [eric]
... If we're going to leave it up to the vendors, then it doesn't make sense to change the URI scheme - at least nothing additional in the spec.
16:11:10 [eric]
... suggested changes are in the email linked to above.
16:15:37 [eric]
mark: we should get agreement on the call today, and then check with people who are not here.
16:16:59 [eric]
Amy: no objections
16:17:12 [eric]
Derek: no objections so far. Want to read it over again.
16:17:21 [eric]
eric: no objections
16:17:31 [eric]
mark: mark no objections
16:17:38 [eric]
peter: objections
16:17:42 [eric]
phil: no objections
16:17:55 [eric]
Yves: as long as we achieve interoperability.
16:18:27 [eric]
action Mark to send out a note to confirm that Glen, Bhakti, Roland have no objections.
16:18:27 [trackbot]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Mark
16:18:27 [trackbot]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. mhapner, mphillip)
16:18:38 [eric]
action markphillips to send out a note to confirm that Glen, Bhakti, Roland have no objections.
16:18:38 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - markphillips
16:21:26 [eric]
action mphillips to send out a note to confirm that Glen, Bhakti, Roland have no objections.
16:21:26 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - mphillips
16:21:51 [eric]
eric: Do need to clarify some of the details of the use of text message.
16:22:23 [markphillips]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Sep/0036.html
16:22:40 [eric]
action eric to write up details around the use of text message, specifically addressing the "encoding" element in XML, the increased size as a consequence of base64 encoding.
16:22:40 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-36 - Write up details around the use of text message, specifically addressing the \"encoding\" element in XML, the increased size as a consequence of base64 encoding. [on Eric Johnson - due 2008-10-07].
16:23:37 [markphillips]
action mphillip to send out a note to confirm that Glen, Bhakti, Roland have no objections.
16:24:47 [eric]
action "Mark Phillips" to send out a note to confirm that Glen, Bhakti, Roland have no objections.
16:25:39 [eric]
peter: think we perhaps should standardize the flagging of which message type to use in the WSDL, it would increase interoperability.
16:27:56 [eric]
phil: Not sure why we wouldn't go to also carry the details in the URI.
16:28:44 [eric]
eric: Yes, but JMS URI is used in non SOAP-JMS cases, and if we added messagetype to URI in its full generality, there are a lot of message types we need to cover for which we don't have use cases.
16:29:11 [eric]
phil: we don't require the use of WSDL, doesn't that make it compelling to put it in both places.
16:29:30 [eric]
peter: Yes, but we're not just talking about programmatic use, even inspection by humans has value.
16:30:24 [eric]
mark: don't we have properties that are not in the URI spec, but that are in the SOAP binding spec as details to be carried in the URI.
16:34:40 [eric]
phil: OK with not specifying it in either place.
16:36:46 [eric]
eric: Note that specifying the message type does not have any affect on the quality of service
16:36:52 [Yves]
is the API abe to use _transfer encoding_ at the HTTP level? (at the application level, it should be transparent), so I guess the discussion is more on the possible encodings returned in Content-Encoding
16:37:34 [eric]
mark: I guess we did already specify that a server must respond in kind to text/bytes message.
16:40:06 [eric]
phil: If we're going to put a binary message in a string, then we have to do base-64 encoding, don't we.
16:40:49 [eric]
Yves: yes - if it is a JPEG, then you would have to use base64....
16:41:56 [alewis]
q+
16:42:41 [eric]
Phil: we don't want to have to use base64, but if that is what the user requests, then that's what we should deliver.
16:43:05 [markphillips]
Zakim, list
16:43:05 [Zakim]
I see WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM active
16:43:06 [Zakim]
also scheduled at this time are Team_(foo)16:33Z, SW_HCLS(Chairs)12:00PM, SW_RIF()11:00AM, XML_ET-TF()11:00AM, SYMM_WG()12:00PM
16:44:40 [eric]
Amy: base64 is remarkably inefficient in UTF-16 - and the JMS API uses String....
16:45:09 [eric]
... also note that there is a security issue here that this could consume large amounts of memory....
16:45:34 [eric]
mark: eric should include the discussion here into writeup on TextMessage.
16:46:38 [eric]
phil: incumbent on runtime vendors to document how to use TextMessage, and why to avoid it.... Need to give the customers the tools to decide.
16:47:19 [eric]
Amy: incumbent upon us note in the specification that the bloat may disappear on the network, but will still have it in memory.
16:47:26 [eric]
phil: not sure about the security implications.
16:47:48 [eric]
amy: enormous leverage for denial of service - memory is a constrained resource in comparison to network bandwidth.
16:49:30 [eric]
eric: I can do a write-up on the discussion around text message, and then responses to that...
16:50:07 [eric]
phil: can live with putting indicator in WSDL for text message as documentation.
16:50:19 [eric]
action peaston to write up how to indicate use of text message in WSDL.
16:50:19 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-37 - Write up how to indicate use of text message in WSDL. [on Peter Easton - due 2008-10-07].
16:50:41 [markphillips]
Topic: Is WSDL portion of specification normative?
16:50:55 [markphillips]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Sep/0039.html
16:51:45 [eric]
peaston: His take is that the WSDL section is not normative.
16:53:47 [eric]
eric: do you care if it is normative?
16:53:59 [eric]
... my point is that I interpreted it as optional, but normative.
16:54:22 [Yves]
+1
16:54:53 [eric]
peaston: making it non-normative would be somewhat redundant - probably shouldn't allow "cafeteria style" approach to WSDL portion of specification.
16:58:06 [eric]
phil: what is "normative"?
16:58:25 [eric]
alewis: the informative sections of the specification are always trumped by the "normative" sections.
16:58:48 [eric]
... making certain that what you write in the normative sections must be both implementable and unambiguous.
17:00:46 [eric]
... what we've got is much more like a "profile". What we've got are four profiles: SOAP, SOAP + WSDL 1.1, SOAP + WSDL 2.0, SOAP + WSDL 1.1 & 2.0
17:01:10 [eric]
... if you're claiming conformance - the WSDL 1.1 & 2.0 sections are normative.
17:01:39 [Zakim]
-[TIBCO]
17:01:40 [Zakim]
-Derek
17:01:40 [Zakim]
-alewis
17:01:42 [Zakim]
-Phil
17:01:44 [Zakim]
-Yves
17:01:50 [Zakim]
-Peter_Easton
17:01:50 [markphillips]
rrsagent, generate minutes
17:01:50 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-soap-jms-minutes.html markphillips
17:01:53 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-soap-jms-minutes.html Yves
17:01:56 [Zakim]
-markphillips
17:01:57 [Zakim]
WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has ended
17:01:59 [Zakim]
Attendees were +0196270aaaa, markphillips, +1.708.246.aabb, Peter_Easton, Derek, Phil, Yves, +1.919.742.aacc, alewis, [TIBCO]
17:09:07 [mphillip]
mphillip has joined #soap-jms
17:09:43 [mphillip]
mphillip has joined #soap-jms
19:00:18 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #soap-jms