SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference

02 Dec 2008

See also: IRC log


Roland, Derek, mphillip, Peter_Easton, Yves, Phil
Eric, Bhakti, Amy




<trackbot> Date: 02 December 2008

<scribe> scribe: mphillip


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

Action 19 - No progress

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 19

Roland: no progress on actions 32 and 48
... or 51 and 53

close action-54

<trackbot> ACTION-54 Send email to secretary general to progress the IETF spec closed

URI Spec

Roland: Eric has forwarded a note containing the options to the list


Binding Spec

Roland: In Last Call - no comments received yet


Roland: No test cases created yet, no nothing else to discuss at this time

Phil: On the subject of assertions, in our spec. we are prescriptive about the format of the message body
... i.e. If the message contains attachments, it will be a mime multipart message

Phile: otherwise it will be a regular SOAP envelope

Phil: However it is not the transport's responsibility to determine the format of the message - this happens higher in the stack by the SOAP serialiser
... The spec. might be easier to implement if we alter some of the assertions in the spec so that they do not impose these message formats

Roland: The most important consideration is interoperability - how would changes like this affect interoperability

Phil: This *shouldn't* affect interoperability - the content type of the payload should be passed up the SOAP stack for the higher levels to interpret
... In the Apache Axis 2 JAX-WS implementation, if MTOM is enabled then every message is created as a mime-multipart message regardless of whether it has an attachment

Roland: We need to work through the implications of how this might affect interoperability

<Phil> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8

Roland: The point of testing is to find issues like this and we may have to react to them

Phil: The JMS content type property and the SOAP or other payload of the message must match but do we need to be more prescriptive than that?

Roland: We need to look at the SOAP with Attachments spec. to see if these are the requirements from that spec.

action Phil to look at the relevant specifications e.g. SOAP with Attachments to assess whether SOAP/JMS binding spec. needs the assertions regarding content type

<trackbot> Created ACTION-55 - Look at the relevant specifications e.g. SOAP with Attachments to assess whether SOAP/JMS binding spec. needs the assertions regarding content type [on Phil Adams - due 2008-12-09].

Phil: From the standpoint of interoperability, the content type doesn't matter to the SOAP/JMS transport - it just has to be relayed between the SOAP sending and receiving nodes
... HTTP and JMS should work the same way

Roland: That was our intent

Peter: SWA spec mentions SMTP - JMS is in similar situation

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2008/12/02 17:36:15 $