SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference

11 Nov 2008


See also: IRC log


alewis, Roland, Peter_Easton, +1.708.246.aaaa, +1.650.846.aabb, Derek, eric, +1.408.956.aacc, bhakti, +1.512.918.aadd




<RolandMerrick> rrsgaent, make log public

<scribe> scribe: eric

outstanding actions

<Roland> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/open

<scribe> no progress on any actions.

Does not appear that we're going to get any sign-off on the materials from Oracle, so we'll have to go recreate the FAQ.

URI spec

Last phone call - discussed sending to IETF - but we'll have to wait on that.

eric: Unable to submit because IETF is not currently accepting - will resume accepting materials on the 17th of Nov.

(returning to open actions)

bhakti will look at the discussion from our mailing list to pull together materials.

binding spec

roland: just waiting for two things:
... update to URI spec
... and W3C process
... should be able to publish it around the end of next week (2008-11-21)
... Suggested to Yves that we would close the last call on the 6th of January. We'll deal with issues as they arise.

eric: How is it that you hit upon the 6th of Jan?

roland: normally about a month, but because of the holidays, defering a little, and that is a typical day for a conf. call.

eric: Suggest adding a week, because the first few days in January will probably holidays

roland: OK - last call deadline will be 2009-01-13


(primarily about test cases)

roland: anyone have any plans to do work on testing in the near future?

eric: I've demonstrably not done the work - what can we do to light a fire under our feet?

phil: it is possible that we could find issues in the spec by writing the tests.

roland: executing the test cases might find others.
... also will be calling for implementations, and that the test cases can be supported by those implementations.

phil: In WebSphere - in 7.0 release that we just announced - it ought to have a correct implementation of the spec.
... until we define all the test cases... and actually run them, we won't know for sure.
... We had an effort before to define testing strategy, but we couldn't do much, due to the differences in the runtimes
... so we decided to define at a higher level the test cases that can be implemented in different ways by different vendors.
... that's how we ended up with our template approach.

roland: What is requlred for validating the spec from a W3C spec, and what is demonstrating interoperability amongst products - two different things.
... If we want to go that extra step for interoperability, we should decide that - do we want an "interoperability fest"?

phil: As an example of an interop scenario - we could take two implementations - configure them to use the same JMS provider, and assume that we had implementations of test cases, we could test the interop by running client on one, server on the other, and vice versa.
... That's the sort of interop testing that WS-I does.
... what is the minimum that each runtime vendor will want to do to demonstrate compatibility with the spec?

roland: Our conformance criteria state that two implementations with the same inputs will generate the same outputs.

peaston: Doesn't need to be a product, does it?

roland: no. we could build a custom piece of code, for that matter.

phil: If we have a commercial product, ought to use it, right?

roland: more implementations is better.

peaston: Sonic could show up with something not yet shipping.

roland: Could be something that never becomes a product.

peaston: Sounds like we should meet to have a "plug-fest"

roland: everyone should talk to their respective organizations to see what is feasible, and what timescale

phil: Lot of prep-work that would go into that

roland: yes - if we're getting together, a fair amount of planning required.

phil: Should we continue down the path we started earlier?

roland: we certainly need to reactive the work we've done earlier.

phil: Do we still believe this is the correct path to take?

peaston: Mock server and mock client?

phil: No - we backed off of that - define what a test case looks like, and vendors decide how to implement that. What's on our website is just an outline.

roland: might be good to do this for an appserver

phil: JavaEE AppServer products - someone could contribute a JEE application that implements those test-case definitions.

roland: of course, doesn't have to be exclusive.

phil: Since I'll need to do something similar to that, potentially might be able to do it in a way that I'll be able to make it public.
... certainly appreciate that there are other environments that are not JEE

roland: any other comments on testing?


roland: I'll ask one - do we need a call next week? Propose that we skip next week unless something comes up that we need to deal with.

peaston: That would have our next meeting 2 days shy of Thanksgiving.

phil: I feel like we need to make some progress on the testing effort.
... people should come back next week to talk about what the testing effort might mean.
... alternatively skip the 25th.

peaston: Presumably we can proceed with test cases.

roland: we certainly can.

peaston: I'm happy to do one, but we need a bunch of them.

roland: I'll go back through and look at the assertions.

<scribe> ACTION: peaston to add a test case. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/11-soap-jms-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-51 - Add a test case. [on Peter Easton - due 2008-11-18].

phil: can send out the mechanics of how to add test cases.
... it is checked into CVS. Should we have anyone defining one committing changes - or should we have one editor merging?

<scribe> ACTION: Yves - make sure everyone has CVS access for creating test cases. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/11-soap-jms-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-52 - - make sure everyone has CVS access for creating test cases. [on Yves Lafon - due 2008-11-18].

roland: we will have a call next week, and decide next week whether we need a meeting the week after that.

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: peaston to add a test case. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/11-soap-jms-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Yves - make sure everyone has CVS access for creating test cases. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2008/11/11-soap-jms-minutes.html#action02]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008/11/11 17:40:07 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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: alewis, Roland, Peter_Easton, +1.708.246.aaaa, +1.650.846.aabb, Derek, eric, +1.408.956.aacc, bhakti, +1.512.918.aadd
Present: alewis Roland Peter_Easton +1.708.246.aaaa +1.650.846.aabb Derek eric +1.408.956.aacc bhakti +1.512.918.aadd
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Nov/0006.html
Got date from IRC log name: 11 Nov 2008
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/11/11-soap-jms-minutes.html
People with action items: peaston yves

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]