IRC log of soap-jms on 2010-01-12

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:07:05 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #soap-jms
17:07:05 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/01/12-soap-jms-irc
17:07:07 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:07:07 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #soap-jms
17:07:09 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SJMS
17:07:09 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM scheduled to start 7 minutes ago
17:07:10 [trackbot]
Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference
17:07:10 [trackbot]
Date: 12 January 2010
17:07:41 [eric]
Mark - are you joining us on the phone?
17:08:41 [mphillip]
yes, apologies - having phone trouble - 2 mins
17:09:02 [eric]
Scribe - eric for now.
17:11:37 [mphillip]
No Objections to previous minutes
17:12:01 [mphillip]
TOPIC: Review Action Items
17:12:24 [mphillip]
Eric: Has made progress on 108
17:12:46 [mphillip]
Mark: No progress on 123, or 125
17:12:59 [mphillip]
Phil: Has done 127 and 128
17:14:04 [mphillip]
TOPIC: URI specification:
17:14:11 [mphillip]
Eric: Need to talk to Oracle
17:15:55 [mphillip]
Eric: URI spec expired on Jan 1st - is still available and we do not propose to renew it until we have agreed the new IP language
17:16:06 [mphillip]
TOPIC: Raised issues
17:16:28 [mphillip]
Phil: Issue 21 was raised in error
17:16:40 [mphillip]
All: No objections to closing issue 21
17:16:53 [mphillip]
RESOLUTION: Issue 21 will be closed
17:17:02 [mphillip]
TOPIC: Accepting proposals to close open issues
17:17:04 [mphillip]
None
17:17:18 [mphillip]
TOPIC: Accepting applied resolutions
17:17:41 [mphillip]
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/19
17:19:34 [mphillip]
RESOLUTION: All accept the applied resolution of issue 19
17:20:05 [mphillip]
Thise closes action 127
17:20:09 [mphillip]
close-127
17:20:16 [mphillip]
close action-127
17:20:17 [trackbot]
ACTION-127 Apply the resolution for Issue 19 closed
17:20:41 [mphillip]
close action-128
17:20:41 [trackbot]
ACTION-128 Apply the resolution for Issue 20 closed
17:21:06 [padams2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Dec/0010.html
17:21:27 [mphillip]
Issue 20
17:21:28 [mphillip]
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/20
17:23:38 [mphillip]
RESOLUTION: All approve the application of the resolution for issue 20
17:24:18 [mphillip]
TOPIC: FAQ - Comments anyone?
17:24:33 [mphillip]
No comments
17:24:36 [mphillip]
TOPIC: Testing
17:24:47 [mphillip]
Relates to Eric's mail on action 108
17:24:53 [eric]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Jan/0002.html
17:26:06 [mphillip]
Phil: Took action item 130 related to this
17:26:46 [mphillip]
Phil: Intended to prototype a test case that includes parameters in a WSDL document
17:29:11 [mphillip]
Eric: The most important assertions that we have are those that assert priority (precedence) of properties, and those that assert the existence of properties / message formation
17:30:30 [mphillip]
Eric: We could add data to the test cases we already have which would be (apparently) redundant in the non-WSDL test cases, but that would test precedence when applied to WSDL tests
17:31:37 [mphillip]
e.g. See testcase 6 http://dev.w3.org/2008/ws/soapjms/testcases/testcases/testcases.html#test0006
17:32:32 [mphillip]
we could add information in the WSDL 1.1 port and verify that the values from the port are used instead of the binding
17:34:06 [mphillip]
OR we could add new test cases to test the precedence rules - this would be ~16 new test cases
17:36:00 [mphillip]
/~16/6/
17:36:37 [mphillip]
...and this number would double to account for WSDL 2.0
17:38:18 [mphillip]
another 4 tests would cover tests on the binding - giving a total of 16 WSDL tests
17:39:50 [mphillip]
Phil: The URI does not necessarily mean the URI specified in the WSDL (but it will be easier to document and understand the test case if we use the WSDL URI)
17:40:05 [mphillip]
Phil: Seems like a reasonable approach
17:42:45 [mphillip]
Mark: Tests 6 & 7 already test the bindings - so these aren't all new tests
17:43:12 [mphillip]
Eric: Agreed - we need to update tests 6 & 7 to reflect the fact that they also test assertion #3002
17:44:08 [mphillip]
Phil: Eric's work means we can close action 30, so I will take an action to develop the first two additional tests (for properties on the service)
17:44:19 [mphillip]
Eric: ...and I will take the remaining 10
17:46:10 [mphillip]
Phil: We can specify just the relevant fragments of WSDL in the test cases
17:47:00 [mphillip]
ACTION: Phil to update test cases 6 & 7 to reflect the decison on WSDL snippets
17:47:00 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-131 - Update test cases 6 & 7 to reflect the decison on WSDL snippets [on Phil Adams - due 2010-01-19].
17:48:11 [mphillip]
Phil: Use action 130 to prototype new test cases
17:48:31 [mphillip]
TOPIC: Implementations
17:49:15 [mphillip]
Eric: TIBCO working on implementation - probably first half of 2010
17:49:33 [mphillip]
Mark: IBM working on another implementation outside WebSphere
17:50:48 [mphillip]
Mark: Would 2 independent implentations from IBM count towards the W3C test criteria
17:51:41 [mphillip]
Yves: Yes -if they are from different code bases, though it is less ambiguous if they are from different vendors
17:51:58 [mphillip]
TOPIC: AOB
17:52:25 [mphillip]
None
17:52:53 [mphillip]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:52:53 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/01/12-soap-jms-minutes.html mphillip
17:54:07 [padams2]
padams2 has left #soap-jms
17:57:37 [eric]
eric has left #soap-jms
19:33:23 [mphillip]
mphillip has joined #soap-jms
19:46:17 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #soap-jms