See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 03 February 2009
<peaston> I'm on the phone...
<scribe> scribe : mphillip
<scribe> No progress on actions 32 & 48
Action 53 is complete but material needs to be uploaded
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - 53
<trackbot> ACTION-56 Add answer to FAQ on how to use WSA anonymous and JMS ReplyTo closed
Peter: Question: I am familiar
with WS-Addressing and how in HTTP you can specify a ReplyTo
which is different from the requester.
... In any stack an error may occur. If we have a request where ReplyTo or FaultTo is another destination
... should we somehow define a behaviour if that reply or fault fails?
Amy: Anything to do with WSA is out of scope for us
Phil: It is up to the sender to make sure that the reply / fault address is available
Amy: Agreed - this would be defined in a WSA, SOAP/JMS binding extension if we were to write one
Roland: Have sent a response to
Yong-Ping - currently out of office
... also sent response to 59 and 60
<trackbot> ACTION-58 Respond to Yong-Ping closed
<trackbot> ACTION-59 Send email about LC-04 based on minutes from conf. call of Jan-27 closed
<trackbot> ACTION-60 Respond with email saying that there is no fault. closed
Roland: Phil has written proposal for #61
<trackbot> ACTION-61 Come up with a proposal to make sure we're consistent. closed
Phil: Recommend proposal #1
Roland: No disagreement - will send this as a response to Yong-Ping
resolution: Adopt Phil's first proposal - Phil to make changes
relates to: 2.2.1 http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-soapjms-20081121/#binding-connection
<peaston> stilol here
Q: Do all other properties defined in javax.naming.Context fit into the soapjms:jndiContextParameter category?
Peter: Believe the answer is yes
- all values for the javax.naming.context go in these
... ...but is our specification not clear enough?
Eric: The jndi docs from the JDK has some possibilites for jndi initial context values
Peter: I proposed this originally
Roland: Can someone suggest some other examples
action Peter to Make a proposal to clarify the wording and scope of the (221) jndiContext Parameter property)
<trackbot> Created ACTION-62 - Make a proposal to clarify the wording and scope of the (221) jndiContext Parameter property) [on Peter Easton - due 2009-02-10].
Roland: Next comment from Phil - LC07: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Jan/0010.html
Phil: It's not really the place
of the transport to specify the contentType
... The SOAP stack and the specifications it implements dictate this
Eric: There might be a simple phrase we can use "for example in the case of a message without attachments, one might use...x value for contentType"
Phil: Yes, the web service implementation determines the contentType (e.g. - might decide to use MIME messages for messages without attachments)
Eric: Yes, we should word this to be explicative rather than normative
All - review Phil's proposed wording
Eric: The revised wording must
remove the normative contraints - needs to say in essense that
the payload looks the same as an HTTP SOAP request
... In an HTTP request the payload is *part* of an MIME message (the HTTP header is also part of the message byte stream).
... In JMS the content type property does not need to be in the message payload - it can go in a JMS property
... So we are only referring to the MIME body part in the JMS message
... So there is a subtle difference between HTTP and JMS - the JMS API keeps the metadata seperate
... and in a JMS message the first part is the MIME boundary
Phil: So the content (body) of the HTTP message equates to the JMS message body
Peter: We have to think of the byte order marks
Amy: How does that equate to MIME?
Eric: Byte order would be a distraction
(discussion on XML declaration vs. HTTP headers for byte ordering)
Eric: Suggest that specific questions be handled over email
Roland: Who will start the discussion thread on this?
Eric: Liked most of Phil's proposal - suggested a specific revision
Phil: WIll revise his proposal to start a discussion
Roland: Dongbo's comments
... We just said the jndi was required - do we need to explicitly say that queue and topic are not required
Eric: I don't think we need to clarify to that point
Roland: Agreed - believe spec is clear enough now
action Roland to respond to dongbo to say that the spec has been clarified re: IRI scheme jndi requirement
<trackbot> Created ACTION-63 - Respond to dongbo to say that the spec has been clarified re: IRI scheme jndi requirement [on Roland Merrick - due 2009-02-10].
Roland: Look at Dongbo's second comment offline and we will start with this next week - a small example may be worthwhile
Derek: re # 62 for peter I have found a standard property required by JBoss...
Peter: In the FAQ we should remove Bhakti's original wording