See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 07 April 2009
<scribe> scribe: mphillip
<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
<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.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]