See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 07 October 2008
<rmerric> Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference
<Roland> rrsgagent, make log public
<scribe> scribe: eric
eric: Since nobody objected to
mark's email, that seems to be consensus about adopting Phil's
... my action was in addition to that proposal - the concerns about using TextMessage.
eric walking us through the proposal...
<Yves> issue is that base64 encoded in utf-16 is very inefficient
eric: no normative statements in this proposal.
roland: suggest that we put it in
line, and see how it reads.
... and then if we think it doesn't read well, move it to an appendix.
eric: does anyone object to what I wrote...?
roland: I'll do the work of getting the text into the spec.
<scribe> ACTION: Roland - put the just agreed-upon changes related to TextMessage into the spec (Phil's write up & Eric's writeup) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-soap-jms-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-38 - - put the just agreed-upon changes related to TextMessage into the spec (Phil's write up & Eric's writeup) [on Roland Merrick - due 2008-10-14].
<trackbot> 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. closed
<trackbot> ACTION-35 Update proposal re context variant and reply to for queue and topic closed
<trackbot> ACTION-37 Write up how to indicate use of text message in WSDL. closed
derek: Should we need to be able let someone specify a temporary topic?
amy: Can't imagine anyone using a temporary topic.
eric: don't think the scenario
derek is raising actually applies.
... only applies when the server specifically wants to set the reply destination - which is a rare case.
peter: This is flexible - so long as we do not require reply to in the URI.
<scribe> ACTION: roland to email/phone Oracle/BEA to see if they want to continue to be listed on the URI specification by 2008-10-08 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-soap-jms-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-39 - Email/phone Oracle/BEA to see if they want to continue to be listed on the URI specification by 2008-10-08 [on Roland Merrick - due 2008-10-14].
Eric's change to URI scheme agreed to.
roland: soap protocol support required, WSDL 1.1 & WSDL 2.0 both optional, but if you implement them, you must implement them as stated.
<scribe> ACTION: roland to write up specific proposal for conformance to address the normative concerns. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-soap-jms-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-40 - Write up specific proposal for conformance to address the normative concerns. [on Roland Merrick - due 2008-10-14].
eric: My concern about specifying anything is that then we have to specify conformance around what it means if you receive something other than what was expected.
peaston: yes, this is about legacy scenarios.
eric: we have a use case at TIBCO for sending TextMessage - but it is client side configuration, and doesn't appear in WSDL.
peaston: not uncomfortable with not putting this in the spec.
Phil: since we expect the runtime vendor to indicate whether to use text or bytes. If we allow for the message type to be specified - if you support WSDL 1.1 - then you have to support that message type parameter in the WSDL, and that might not make sense based on what the vendor has already defined.
Roland: have we just talked ourselves out of doing this?
Phil: Since we're not fully specifying, we probably shouldn't mention anything - up to the runtime vendor.
Roland: anyone disagree with what
Phil just said?
... anyone think that we should keep this?
... anyone object to dropping this item?
peaston: dropping it is fine. I
put it forth because of the use cases presented to support
legacy interaction. If vendors are going to have their own
switches, that's probably fine.
... also through out the idea for ad-hoc items in the WSDL.
Roland: Still on the agenda - we can do that next week.
Phil: Can you clarify something - legacy vendor - they only accept text messages - to be truly interoperable, I need to know somehow how to send TextMessages.
<Phil> actually that was Derek :)
peaston: I might be able to describe myself in WSDL, and have a newer client work with my endpoint. A legacy server that only accepts TextMessage....
Derek: We're not precluding a vendor specifying something to accommodate that.
peaston: I just threw this out there to see if there is some interest.
Oops - and that Derek before peaston - that was Phil.
Roland: Can we close of the issue of specifying text vs. bytes in WSDL? We're not going to specify it.
(no disagreement on the call)
<Roland> 06rrsagent, draft minutes01
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133 of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: eric Inferring ScribeNick: eric Default Present: Phil, Roland, +1.708.246.aaaa, Derek, Peter_Easton, +1.650.846.aabb, eric, Yves, +1.919.742.aacc, alewis Present: Phil Roland +1.708.246.aaaa Derek Peter_Easton +1.650.846.aabb eric Yves +1.919.742.aacc alewis Regrets: Mark Bhakti Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Oct/0000.html Found Date: 07 Oct 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/10/07-soap-jms-minutes.html People with action items: roland[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]