SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference

13 Jan 2009


See also: IRC log


+1.919.663.aaaa, Roland, alewis, +1.512.286.aabb, Derek, Peter_Easton, eric, Phil




<trackbot> Date: 13 January 2009

<scribe> Scribe:peaston

Outstanding actions

<Roland> Scribe: Peaston

scribetopic: outstanding actions

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

<scribe> chair: roland

Need to see Yves wrt act 55 because of last call status revisit next week

<Roland> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/wiki/2008-09_FAQ

URI Spec

eric: Cisco employee awaiting email internally

last call review comments from TSG

give this a week for responses to be made

awaiting from Oracle, SDA input on spec

review testing and Dereks email re property test

<Roland> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Jan/0007.html

derek: have spec and a testing question

<scribe> ACTION: derek to raise spec question independently after call [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/13-soap-jms-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-57 - Raise spec question independently after call [on Derek Rokicki - due 2009-01-20].

derek: should we be testing the how or source of the message property wsdl uri etc
... how do we test the precedence rules?

eric: we should not have individual tests try and accomplish multiple properties in one test

roland: I think we need specific tests

phil: true individual test cases but not necessarity individual tests

roland: criteria is to provide a test suite to validate assertions

phil: do we need a concrete suite

eric: first priority is to ensure testability of all assertions also smaller test collateral is better
... value also to test individual failed tests
... but don't get too specific e.g. JAXWS might not be the environment
... no value in massive number of tests

roland: no rules for this on W3C
... stick to goal can we test all the assertions

derek: ok consensus is that fewer physical tests is better
... do we have to spell whole WSDL or just shell

eric: keep all WSDL tests in one section

roland: yes because of conformance groupings
... perhaps an aspect approach e.g. WSDL conformance needs tests x,y,z

delivery mode issue

property name for non persistent is incorrect or inconsistent propose NON_PERSISTENT i.e. underscore present


phil: time frame for approval ?

amy: rules of thumb are 3 months between cr,pr etc

roland: we need implementations

I have lost my phone !!!

<Roland> thats all f9olks

bye all

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: derek to raise spec question independently after call [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/13-soap-jms-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.133 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009/01/13 17:52:32 $

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)

Succeeded: s/uir/uri/
Succeeded: s/eric/phil/
Found Scribe: peaston
Inferring ScribeNick: peaston
Found Scribe: Peaston
Inferring ScribeNick: peaston
Default Present: +1.919.663.aaaa, Roland, alewis, +1.512.286.aabb, Derek, Peter_Easton, eric, Phil
Present: +1.919.663.aaaa Roland alewis +1.512.286.aabb Derek Peter_Easton eric Phil
Regrets: Mark
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Jan/0009.html
Found Date: 13 Jan 2009
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/01/13-soap-jms-minutes.html
People with action items: derek

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]