IRC log of soap-jms on 2009-01-27

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:54:04 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #soap-jms
16:54:04 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:54:06 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:54:06 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #soap-jms
16:54:08 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SJMS
16:54:08 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM scheduled to start in 6 minutes
16:54:09 [trackbot]
Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference
16:54:09 [trackbot]
Date: 27 January 2009
16:54:24 [Roland]
16:54:33 [Roland]
Chair: Roland
16:55:59 [Zakim]
WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has now started
16:56:06 [Zakim]
16:57:30 [peaston]
peaston has joined #soap-jms
16:59:55 [Derek]
Derek has joined #soap-jms
17:00:29 [eric]
eric has joined #soap-jms
17:00:37 [Zakim]
17:00:40 [Zakim]
17:00:41 [Zakim]
17:01:47 [Zakim]
17:03:14 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.519.aaaa
17:04:03 [Phil]
Phil has joined #soap-jms
17:04:49 [Zakim]
17:05:16 [Zakim]
17:05:54 [eric]
scribe: eric
17:06:02 [eric]
topic: actions
17:06:27 [mphillip]
mphillip has joined #soap-jms
17:06:43 [eric]
Eric has made no progress on action #32.
17:07:07 [Zakim]
17:07:07 [eric]
derek has made progress on action #53.
17:07:18 [eric]
need to update the official test suite page.
17:07:45 [eric]
derek: who do I talk to post the updates?
17:07:56 [eric]
phil: just email the changes to me....
17:08:02 [eric]
derek: all in a word document...
17:08:13 [eric]
phil: send me the XML snippets, and he can merge them.
17:08:42 [eric]
close action 55
17:09:27 [eric]
close action-55
17:09:27 [trackbot]
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 closed
17:10:50 [eric]
peter: several emails exchanged with Jacques Talbot... he seems to want more content.
17:11:48 [eric]
roland: do we have another question to complement the one that Bhakti had.
17:12:19 [eric]
peter: Don't think there was specifically another question to answer.
17:13:54 [eric]
JMS has features that HTTP doesn't have, so that reduces the need for *some* features of WS-Addressing.
17:14:02 [eric]
Roland: How about just posting to the wiki.
17:14:07 [Roland]
17:14:35 [eric]
peter: will put it in the appropriate medium.
17:15:56 [eric]
roland: I believe Derek completed action 57.
17:16:16 [eric]
close action-57
17:16:16 [trackbot]
ACTION-57 Raise spec question independently after call closed
17:17:00 [eric]
topic: uri spec
17:17:05 [eric]
roland: has anything moved here?
17:17:08 [eric]
eric: no
17:17:40 [eric]
topic: last call comments
17:17:55 [Yves]
17:18:53 [Roland]
17:18:57 [eric]
Roland: suggested change for LC-02
17:19:03 [eric]
... (see email link)
17:19:34 [eric]
roland: I think we talked about this a long time ago, but never made it explicit.
17:19:52 [eric]
Mark: Where we've got code, we've made it 1.1...
17:20:12 [eric]
Roland: anyone unhappy with making JMS requirement of 1.1.
17:20:18 [eric]
17:20:53 [eric]
action: roland to respond to Yong-Ping
17:20:53 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-58 - Respond to Yong-Ping [on Roland Merrick - due 2009-02-03].
17:21:21 [alewis]
alewis has joined #soap-jms
17:21:59 [Zakim]
17:22:03 [eric]
Derek: Are we saying that it only works on JMS 1.1, or that 1.0.1 could be supported, but is not required.
17:22:21 [Phil]
s/Derek/Phil/g :)
17:22:28 [eric]
17:22:34 [eric]
17:23:17 [eric]
Phil: are we really saying that vendor can assume 1.1?
17:24:19 [eric]
eric: before W3C, we were only interested in JMS 1.1.
17:25:13 [eric]
phil: suppose vendor implementation doesn't use generic APIs from JMS 1.1, doesn't that mean that it is supporting 1.0.1?
17:25:39 [eric]
Phil: withdrawing comment.
17:25:57 [eric]
roland: 1.1 is the conformance requirement - agreement?
17:26:48 [eric]
Phil: when we're saying this is a conformance requirement, are we making it easier on the vendor by saying only version 1.1 of API?
17:27:43 [eric]
mphillip: A compliant implementation could use the old APIs or the new APIs.
17:28:12 [eric]
Roland: Why have any conformance - if we say it is 1.1, then they don't have to worry about earlier versions.
17:28:31 [eric]
Phil: Can vendors assume JMS 1.1?
17:30:51 [eric]
eric: A conforming implementation must work with JMS 1.1.
17:32:07 [eric]
eric: Even if JMS 1.2 came out, I wouldn't care, unless any given JMS 1.2 implementation was also fully conformant with JMS 1.1
17:32:19 [eric]
roland: all happy?
17:32:48 [eric]
Phil: which one was that again?
17:32:52 [eric]
Roland: LC-02
17:33:38 [eric]
roland: next comment to address LC-04
17:34:51 [eric]
eric: which item is this?
17:35:04 [eric]
roland: **Comment3 from email (
17:35:21 [Roland]
17:35:35 [Roland]
17:38:10 [eric]
Roland: Suspect that part of the confusion comes from this in the email "That is, the JNDI way is the default/mandatory mechanism required by JMS spec"
17:38:37 [eric]
roland: not sure that we say that JNDI is supported
17:38:46 [eric]
eric: I think URI spec says that JNDI is required.
17:38:57 [eric]
Phil: we have to have at least one way.
17:39:06 [eric]
... otherwise we don't have interoperability.
17:41:00 [eric]
eric: The URI spec is open ended on resolving destinations, but the SOAP/JMS binding specification doesn't talk about any non-JNDI elements in the WSDL.
17:41:20 [eric]
Roland: I think it is worth stating that supporting the JNDI lookup is required.
17:42:04 [eric]
eric: Anyone disagree with "a conforming implementation MUST support JNDI destination lookup." ?
17:42:26 [eric]
mphillip: I don't see a problem with that, but is there a problem if we don't say it.
17:42:48 [eric]
alewis: Don't we require conformance to the URI spec?
17:43:03 [eric]
Roland: I don't see any place in the URI spec where we require it?
17:43:14 [eric]
alewis: We probably should say it there.
17:44:07 [eric]
mphillip: If JNDI falls out of favor - then we wouldn't want the legacy burden.
17:44:36 [eric]
alewis: We make reference to the JMS specification, so perhaps it is redundant? If JMS dropped it, then we could drop it.
17:44:56 [eric]
Roland: Where do we require it? Leave it as it is in the URI spec, but in the binding spec, be more specific.
17:45:31 [eric]
mphillip: agree
17:46:01 [eric]
eric: Are we back to my proposal for that the binding spec should say "a conforming...".
17:46:03 [eric]
Roland: yes.
17:46:42 [eric]
peaston: Looking for "magic bullet", but JMS spec seems to be wishy-washy.
17:47:10 [eric]
Derek: I'm fine with it.
17:47:15 [eric]
peaston: I'm happy with it.
17:48:00 [eric]
Roland: Sounds like we have consensus that JNDI lookup is a conformance requirement of the binding spec.
17:48:14 [eric]
... doesn't quite answer the question raised in the last call comment.
17:49:17 [eric]
"destinationName" doesn't show up as a string anywhere, so it is just a label for a property. JNDI is the required conformance minimum.
17:49:57 [eric]
action: Roland to send email about LC-04 based on minutes from conf. call of Jan-27
17:49:57 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-59 - Send email about LC-04 based on minutes from conf. call of Jan-27 [on Roland Merrick - due 2009-02-03].
17:51:08 [eric]
Roland: moving on to discuss LC-03
17:51:26 [eric]
peaston: question is out of order.
17:51:35 [eric]
Roland: Yes - you are required to specify an variant.
17:51:48 [eric]
Phil: Doesn't this go in the URI spec?
17:52:10 [eric]
Roland: This is in the URI spec.
17:52:27 [eric]
eric: You must specify one - it could be one letter long, but it is part of the syntax.
17:52:55 [eric]
action: Roland to respond with email saying that there is no fault.
17:52:55 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-60 - Respond with email saying that there is no fault. [on Roland Merrick - due 2009-02-03].
17:53:07 [eric]
Derek: No change to the binding spec, right?
17:54:20 [eric]
Roland: now discussing LC-05
17:55:15 [eric]
peaston: My opinion is that we have it right.
17:56:10 [eric]
Phil: as long as we're consistent in the use of the constants or the true values, we're all right - we should probably use the constants.
17:57:04 [eric]
eric: do we need an action item for someone to go through and fix up the spec for consistency?
17:57:15 [eric]
peaston: I think we have it right. We should use the values.
17:58:17 [eric]
Phil: I see an inconsistency. In 2.2.1, we refer to both constant and value. Suggestion - look at the JNDI spec, and use the same approach - whether it is constant name or constant value.
17:58:36 [eric]
action: phil to come up with a proposal to make sure we're consistent.
17:58:37 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-61 - Come up with a proposal to make sure we're consistent. [on Phil Adams - due 2009-02-03].
17:59:36 [Zakim]
17:59:39 [Zakim]
17:59:40 [Zakim]
17:59:40 [Zakim]
17:59:41 [Zakim]
- +1.617.519.aaaa
17:59:41 [Zakim]
17:59:42 [Zakim]
17:59:48 [Roland]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:59:48 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Roland
17:59:52 [eric]
eric has left #soap-jms
18:00:29 [Roland]
rrsagent, make minutes
18:00:29 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Roland
18:00:36 [Zakim]
18:00:38 [Zakim]
WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has ended
18:00:39 [Zakim]
Attendees were Roland, Derek, eric, +1.617.519.aaaa, Phil, mphillip, Yves, alewis
18:00:47 [Roland]
rrsagent, make minutes
18:00:47 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Roland
18:01:32 [Roland]
Zakim, aaaa is peaston
18:01:37 [Zakim]
sorry, Roland, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa'
18:02:06 [Roland]
Roland has left #soap-jms