SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference

27 Oct 2009


See also: IRC log


alewis, +1.708.246.aaaa, +0196287aabb, mphillip, eric, Yves
Phil, and, Peter




<trackbot> Date: 27 October 2009

<scribe> Scribe: mphilip

3) Review the agenda

Approval of prior meeting minutes

Minutes from 13-10 approved

Minutes from 20-10 approved

Review action items

Derek: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/68 - questions about non-normative MEPs - specifically robust in only
... FAQ on non-normative MEPs could be very simple - just state that they are not prohibited, or
... FAQ could say that it is an extension / derivation of request reply

Amy: The WSDL MEP definitions for "optional response" did not originate from Req/Resp
... Robust in-only is designed for connection oriented protocol - allows an error to be returned

Derek: Not calling it req/resp - but it shares the replyTo with req/resp

Eric: Suggest we defer until later
... http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/108 - no progress

Mark: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/109 - applied resolution for issue 4

close action-109

<trackbot> ACTION-109 Update the specification to reflect the change to Protocol 2021 assertion closed

Eric: 112 still open
... Issue opened for 116

close action-116

<trackbot> ACTION-116 Correct the "soap" prefix reference in section 3.4.5 closed

Eric: Issues opened for 118, 119

close action-118

<trackbot> ACTION-118 Review the spec for references, and propose resolution closed

close action-119

<trackbot> ACTION-119 Try to determine what is normative and how to generate test cases. closed

Phil: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/117 - no update

5) URI specification:

Eric: No update

6) Raised issues:

Eric: Back to discussion on MEPs

Derek: FAQ could just state that MEPs are not prohibited
... or FAQ could go into more detail about how the spec applies - e.g. use the same mechanism as req-resp for returning an optional response

Amy: We would need a binding to specify a MEP
... If we want support for the robust in-only MEP then we must write up the binding
... (or someone must write it up)

Eric: Don't see how robust in-only maps to JMS - would like to see a concrete proposal explaining the mapping

Amy: Quite easy - take the in-only MEP, take the replyTo from the inbound message, and use it to send a fault if one is required... could use the return portion of our request-response MEP as a template for this

Eric: When using asynchronous JMS how long do you wait for the fault before you decide that one isn't coming
... etc. - so would like to see a proposal

Amy: Could do this with an "error window" property
... Can discuss the issues in an FAQ, but someone needs to write the MEP binding to have an interoperable MEP

Derek: Would we need a new version of the spec if we added a new MEP

Amy: Yes, we would need to go back to Last Call
... Alternatively we could add a new document - the "Robust in-only binding extension for SOAP/JMS" which would go through the specification process without setting the core Binding spec back to last call

Eric: 3 options:- Put a note in FAQ; Revise the existing binding spec; or Add a separate spec. extension

Amy: This would be a big FAQ extension, suggest we have a more general FAQ question which points to a normative Binding Extension

Mark: Not sure of the need for a robust in-only MEP when using the inherently reliable async JMS transport

Derek: Were the robust MEPs added to WSDL for JMS?

Amy: Some of the motivation for more extensibility in WSDL 2.0 was pub/sub and the desire for more sophisticated MEPs

Eric: Derek, could you make a proposal if this is something you feel we should support?

Derek: Don't feel it is necessary - not a lot of JMS users will require this

Amy: If someone wants this then they should submit a draft proposal to the SOAP/JMS Working Group. In the FAQ we could ask people to submit such a draft if they feel it is justified.

RESOLUTION: Derek to write the FAQ Entry - Amy offered to review

Eric: On to the raised issues: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/raised
... http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/16 - Section 3.4.5 makes a reference to a non-existent soap prefix

All agree to open this issue

Eric: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/17 - References to RFC 3987 are incorrect - it is the IRI spec. but we now refer to URIs

All agree to open this issue

Eric: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/18 - Existing specification makes inconsistent use of references, acronyms - e.g. Java Messaging Service is defined as JMS but we do not make consistent use of the acronym throughout

All agree to open this issue

Eric: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/19 - WSDL statements about priority of properties are confusing

All agree to open this issue

Eric: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/20 - normative statement 3004 does not stand on its own (and has no normative keywords)
... Need to define where the XML elements for these properties should occur

All agree to open this issue

7) Accepting proposals to close open issues


Eric: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/15 - this is a lot of small edits - everyone needs to read and review before we can close
... Please review before next week

8) Accepting applied resolutions:

<eric> Email for issue #4: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Oct/0016.html

Mark: Applies to http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/4

<eric> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms.html?rev=1.66&content-type=text/html&f=h#Protocol-2021

Eric: There is duplication in section 2.2.4 - the bullets and third column duplicate Protocol 2021

action Mark to remove the duplication from 2.2.4

<trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Mark

<trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. mhapner, mphillip)

action mphillip to remove the duplication from 2.2.4

<trackbot> Created ACTION-120 - Remove the duplication from 2.2.4 [on Mark Phillips - due 2009-11-03].

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2009/10/27 17:03:14 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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)

No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: mphillip
Found Scribe: mphilip
Default Present: alewis, +1.708.246.aaaa, +0196287aabb, mphillip, eric, Yves
Present: alewis +1.708.246.aaaa +0196287aabb mphillip eric Yves
Regrets: Phil and Peter
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Oct/0029.html
Found Date: 27 Oct 2009
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/10/27-soap-jms-minutes.html
People with action items: 

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

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]