See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 27 January 2009
<scribe> scribe: eric
Eric has made no progress on action #32.
derek has made progress on action #53.
need to update the official test suite page.
derek: who do I talk to post the updates?
phil: just email the changes to me....
derek: all in a word document...
phil: send me the XML snippets, and he can merge them.
close action 55
<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
peter: several emails exchanged with Jacques Talbot... he seems to want more content.
roland: do we have another question to complement the one that Bhakti had.
peter: Don't think there was specifically another question to answer.
JMS has features that HTTP doesn't have, so that reduces the need for *some* features of WS-Addressing.
Roland: How about just posting to the wiki.
<Roland> FAQ: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/wiki/2008-09_FAQ
peter: will put it in the appropriate medium.
roland: I believe Derek completed action 57.
<trackbot> ACTION-57 Raise spec question independently after call closed
roland: has anything moved here?
Roland: suggested change for
... (see email link)
... I think we talked about this a long time ago, but never made it explicit.
Mark: Where we've got code, we've made it 1.1...
Roland: anyone unhappy with
making JMS requirement of 1.1.
<scribe> ACTION: roland to respond to Yong-Ping [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-soap-jms-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-58 - Respond to Yong-Ping [on Roland Merrick - due 2009-02-03].
Derek: Are we saying that it only works on JMS 1.1, or that 1.0.1 could be supported, but is not required.
<Phil> s/Derek/Phil/g :)
Phil: are we really saying that vendor can assume 1.1?
eric: before W3C, we were only interested in JMS 1.1.
phil: suppose vendor
implementation doesn't use generic APIs from JMS 1.1, doesn't
that mean that it is supporting 1.0.1?
... withdrawing comment.
roland: 1.1 is the conformance requirement - agreement?
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?
mphillip: A compliant implementation could use the old APIs or the new APIs.
Roland: Why have any conformance - if we say it is 1.1, then they don't have to worry about earlier versions.
Phil: Can vendors assume JMS 1.1?
eric: A conforming implementation
must work with JMS 1.1.
... 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
roland: all happy?
Phil: which one was that again?
... next comment to address LC-04
eric: which item is this?
roland: **Comment3 from email (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Jan/0008.html)
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"
... not sure that we say that JNDI is supported
eric: I think URI spec says that JNDI is required.
Phil: we have to have at least
... otherwise we don't have interoperability.
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.
Roland: I think it is worth stating that supporting the JNDI lookup is required.
eric: Anyone disagree with "a conforming implementation MUST support JNDI destination lookup." ?
mphillip: I don't see a problem with that, but is there a problem if we don't say it.
alewis: Don't we require conformance to the URI spec?
Roland: I don't see any place in the URI spec where we require it?
alewis: We probably should say it there.
mphillip: If JNDI falls out of favor - then we wouldn't want the legacy burden.
alewis: We make reference to the JMS specification, so perhaps it is redundant? If JMS dropped it, then we could drop it.
Roland: Where do we require it? Leave it as it is in the URI spec, but in the binding spec, be more specific.
eric: Are we back to my proposal for that the binding spec should say "a conforming...".
peaston: Looking for "magic bullet", but JMS spec seems to be wishy-washy.
Derek: I'm fine with it.
peaston: I'm happy with it.
Roland: Sounds like we have
consensus that JNDI lookup is a conformance requirement of the
... doesn't quite answer the question raised in the last call comment.
"destinationName" doesn't show up as a string anywhere, so it is just a label for a property. JNDI is the required conformance minimum.
<scribe> ACTION: Roland to send email about LC-04 based on minutes from conf. call of Jan-27 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-soap-jms-minutes.html#action02]
<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].
Roland: moving on to discuss LC-03
peaston: question is out of order.
Roland: Yes - you are required to specify an variant.
Phil: Doesn't this go in the URI spec?
Roland: This is in the URI spec.
eric: You must specify one - it could be one letter long, but it is part of the syntax.
<scribe> ACTION: Roland to respond with email saying that there is no fault. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-soap-jms-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-60 - Respond with email saying that there is no fault. [on Roland Merrick - due 2009-02-03].
Derek: No change to the binding spec, right?
Roland: now discussing LC-05
peaston: My opinion is that we have it right.
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.
eric: do we need an action item for someone to go through and fix up the spec for consistency?
peaston: I think we have it right. We should use the values.
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.
<scribe> ACTION: phil to come up with a proposal to make sure we're consistent. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-soap-jms-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-61 - Come up with a proposal to make sure we're consistent. [on Phil Adams - due 2009-02-03].
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) WARNING: Bad s/// command: s/Derek/Phil/g :) Found Scribe: eric Inferring ScribeNick: eric Default Present: Roland, Derek, eric, +1.617.519.aaaa, Phil, mphillip, Yves, alewis Present: Roland Derek eric +1.617.519.aaaa Phil mphillip Yves alewis Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Jan/0029.html Found Date: 27 Jan 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-soap-jms-minutes.html People with action items: phil roland[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]