<trackbot> Date: 07 April 2009

<scribe> scribe: mphillip

Actions

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

Eric: No progress on action 32

Derek: No progress on action 68

Eric: no progress on action 70 (taken over by Eric a couple of weeks ago)

Roland: has reassigned to Eric
... This is one of the final last-call comments

Eric: Sent follow up to Harald on IRI JNDI issue (action 73) - there was one question left - whether we prefix custom properties on the IRI
... 3 categories of JNDI properties - connection name, standard JNDI properties to establish the connection name, and custom properties relating to a JNDI provider
... We don't treat the name of properties the same (e.g. some have "jndi-" prefix)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Mar/0019.html

Example: &jndi-com.sun.jndi.someParameter=someValue
... &jndiConnectionFactoryName=CONNFACT

Eric: Favour convention over consistency - "jndi-" prefix seems too verbose

Roland: Harald is asking whether we have considered consistent naming rather than strongly suggesting we change

Eric: The advantage of our current (inconsistent) scheme is that it is more concise

Roland: and the additional parameters will be uncommon

(i.e. the "jndi-" parms)

Roland: Suggest we write back stating that the common parameters will be kept without a prefix for brevity

Derek: Suggests changing "jndi-" to "jndiContextParameter"

<Derek> jndiContextParameter-com.sun.foo=bar

for consistency with Binding spec.

Derek: Not as concise, but as we have said, this is the edge case

Roland: ...and it is consistent with WSDl
... Agreed - this has some merit

Eric: Likes Derek's suggestion

Roland: Any disagreement ?

no-one disgreed with Derek's proposal

RESOLUTION: Eric to update the IRI spec, and write to Harald

<scribe> ACTION: Derek to review the SOAP-JMS Binding spec to see if any changes are required for new jndi naming scheme [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-soap-jms-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-79 - Review the SOAP-JMS Binding spec to see if any changes are required for new jndi naming scheme [on Derek Rokicki - due 2009-04-14].

<scribe> No progress on action 75

Amy: sent email to list on action 77 (precedence rules)

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

Amy: We need to be clearer that the environment can override the WSDL

Roland: We need to make it clear that when we resolve the URI in the WSDL, it is part of the precedence rules in the WSDL

Amy: Recommends the addition of the single sentence in the email to section 3.4.5

Roland: Does this also apply to WSDL2 ?

Amy: yes, but we handle WSDL 2 by referring to WSDL 1

Eric: The is a question "How do we know that a URI in the environment overrides the WSDL?" In TIBCO BusinessWorks, a SOAP/JMS WSDL can be overriden by the customer

Roland: Maybe need to strengthen the statements in 2.2

Amy: The environment includes JMS message

Roland: Maybe 2.2 is not correct. States that precedence is Environment, WSDL, URI. This is a confusing statement

Amy: We should explain that statement means the URI in WSDL. URI can come from WSDL, environment, or message. Presumably any ReplyTo URI in the message will trump any other value.
... If we're not clear we should consider cutting text instead of adding some

Roland: Yes, we should drop the URI from section 2.2, because it is not clear where this URI comes from

(this is point 3 in section 2.2)

<scribe> ACTION: Roland to remove point 3 (properties come from JMS URI) from section 2.2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-soap-jms-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-80 - Remove point 3 (properties come from JMS URI) from section 2.2 [on Roland Merrick - due 2009-04-14].

Amy: Offers to review the changes

Last Call Comments

<Roland> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/wiki/2009-01_LC_Comments#Comments

close action-78

<trackbot> ACTION-78 Chase acknowledgement of all our responses closed

Roland: Has chased up the comments per action 78

LC07 - waiting for Eric's action

LC09 - discussed today

LC08 - waiting for Dongbo to accept reply

Roland: If we can get these comments accepted, how long will it take to move to Candidate Recommendation

Yves: If we have made major changes we may need another Last Call - this needs to be reviewed
... Would take another 2 weeks to get approval for CR

Roland: So good chance of getting to CR by end of April?
... Please try to finish last call actions by next week

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135  of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: mphillip
Inferring ScribeNick: mphillip
Default Present: Roland, Derek, Yves, +0196287aaaa, mphillip, eric, alewis
Present: Roland Derek Yves +0196287aaaa mphillip eric alewis
Regrets: Phil
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Apr/0008.html
Found Date: 07 Apr 2009
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/04/07-soap-jms-minutes.html
People with action items: derek roland

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