IRC log of soap-jms on 2010-03-16

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:02:52 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #soap-jms
16:02:52 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/03/16-soap-jms-irc
16:02:54 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:02:54 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #soap-jms
16:02:56 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SJMS
16:02:56 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM scheduled to start 2 minutes ago
16:02:57 [trackbot]
Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference
16:02:57 [trackbot]
Date: 16 March 2010
16:04:19 [padams2]
padams2 has joined #soap-jms
16:04:27 [mphillip]
Chair: Eric
16:04:47 [eric]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:04:47 [Zakim]
WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has not yet started, eric
16:04:49 [Zakim]
On IRC I see padams, Zakim, RRSAgent, mphillip, eric, Yves, trackbot
16:05:39 [mphillip]
trackbot, start telcon
16:05:41 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:05:43 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SJMS
16:05:44 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM scheduled to start 5 minutes ago
16:05:44 [trackbot]
Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference
16:05:45 [trackbot]
Date: 16 March 2010
16:05:52 [eric]
zakim, who is on the phone?
16:05:52 [Zakim]
WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has not yet started, eric
16:05:54 [Zakim]
On IRC I see padams, Zakim, RRSAgent, mphillip, eric, Yves, trackbot
16:06:22 [mphillip]
Zakim, this is WS_SOAP-JM
16:06:22 [Zakim]
ok, mphillip; that matches WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM
16:06:32 [Zakim]
+Yves
16:06:44 [eric]
zakim, this is SJMS
16:06:44 [Zakim]
eric, this was already WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM
16:06:45 [Zakim]
ok, eric; that matches WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM
16:07:25 [padams]
Zakim, aacc is padams
16:07:25 [Zakim]
+padams; got it
16:07:29 [eric]
zakim, aaaa is eric
16:07:29 [Zakim]
+eric; got it
16:07:51 [padams]
zakim, aabb is mphillip
16:07:51 [Zakim]
+mphillip; got it
16:07:51 [mphillip]
Zakim, aabb is mphillip
16:07:52 [Zakim]
sorry, mphillip, I do not recognize a party named 'aabb'
16:07:53 [Zakim]
+ +1.919.663.aadd
16:08:33 [mphillip]
TOPIC: 1) Appointment of the scribe
16:08:38 [mphillip]
scribe: Mphillip
16:09:03 [mphillip]
TOPIC: Review the agenda
16:10:18 [mphillip]
TOPIC: Review action items
16:10:52 [mphillip]
Mark: No progress on 138,147,148
16:11:14 [mphillip]
Eric: 143 is completed (see:
16:11:15 [mphillip]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Mar/0016.html)
16:11:34 [mphillip]
Eric: as are 149 and 151 (see links in agenda()
16:11:49 [mphillip]
Eric: 146 and 152 still pending
16:12:08 [mphillip]
close action-143
16:12:09 [trackbot]
ACTION-143 Ensure that we have tests for all the WSDL assertions closed
16:12:14 [mphillip]
close action-149
16:12:14 [trackbot]
ACTION-149 Update testcase 6,7 to fix text in "message flow" section to reflect changes made to WSDL fragment closed
16:12:18 [mphillip]
close action-151
16:12:18 [trackbot]
ACTION-151 Develop a proposal for how to address protocol-2015 closed
16:12:27 [mphillip]
Phil: No progress on 150
16:12:58 [mphillip]
TOPIC: URI specification
16:13:10 [mphillip]
Nothing to add - Eric has action item to follow up with Oracle
16:13:21 [mphillip]
TOPIC: Moving to PR
16:13:29 [mphillip]
See:
16:13:29 [mphillip]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Mar/0018.html
16:15:13 [mphillip]
Eric: We are close to moving towards public review
16:15:16 [mphillip]
Phil: Agreed
16:15:21 [mphillip]
Mark: Agreed
16:16:51 [Yves]
note form the CR status of the document: SOTD
16:16:59 [Yves]
The Working Group intend to submit this document for consideration as a W3C Proposed Recommendation after 31 August 2009 having met the following criteria:
16:16:59 [Yves]
1.
16:16:59 [Yves]
At least two implementations have demonstrated interoperability of each feature.
16:16:59 [Yves]
2.
16:17:00 [Yves]
All issues raised during the CR period against this document have received formal responses.
16:19:44 [mphillip]
Eric: The process does not require two interoperable implementations as long as there are two implementations that pass each of the test cases (and that have documented this)
16:20:51 [mphillip]
Phil: The implementations are not necessarily the same class of middleware so it may be difficult to implement test cases that are applicable to all implementations
16:23:17 [mphillip]
Eric: As we've discussed, we could have a bare bones JMS test harness which dummys up the request and identifies the expected response
16:24:43 [mphillip]
Eric: Practically we may not have the resources to set up a full interop test
16:26:10 [mphillip]
Eric: Can we take these back to our product teams and see what they can do
16:28:26 [mphillip]
Yves: When we did interrop tests for WSI the test was an echo from the toolkit serialising and deserialisng which was enough to show if there were problems
16:28:45 [Yves]
s/WSI/WS-Databiding/
16:29:12 [Yves]
s/WS-Databinding/XML Schema Patterns for Databinding/
16:30:22 [mphillip]
mphillip: We should be able to do some interop testing within different implementations in IBM, and possibly could share the trace from the test
16:30:52 [mphillip]
Eric: ...and the tests and trace do not need to be made public... this may be something that we only share amongst ourselves
16:32:05 [mphillip]
Eric: or we buy some resources on (for example) the Amazon cloud, and set up images which we use to demostrate interoperability
16:32:27 [mphillip]
action Eric to investigate feasibility of operating JMS in the cloud
16:32:28 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-153 - Investigate feasibility of operating JMS in the cloud [on Eric Johnson - due 2010-03-23].
16:38:15 [mphillip]
Phil: "At least two implementations have demonstrated interoperability of each feature." - does this just mean each required feature - i.e. not WSDL
16:39:23 [mphillip]
Yves: Correct - this does not have to include optional features - though ideally it would
16:40:32 [mphillip]
action mark to Investigate IBM's legal position in sharing or using IBM product test suites in interops tests
16:40:32 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-154 - Investigate IBM's legal position in sharing or using IBM product test suites in interops tests [on Mark Phillips - due 2010-03-23].
16:42:26 [mphillip]
Eric: How many tests can an implementation run without WSDL? ...and if we take out all the WSDL tests, would we eliminate protocol statements for non-WSDL requirements
16:43:04 [mphillip]
Eric: i.e. Can we still test all the normative assertions without the WSDL tests
16:43:46 [mphillip]
action Phil to check that we have coverage of all non-WSDL assertions if we do not run the WSDL tests
16:43:46 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-155 - Check that we have coverage of all non-WSDL assertions if we do not run the WSDL tests [on Phil Adams - due 2010-03-23].
16:44:19 [mphillip]
TOPIC: Next Week's Meeting
16:45:19 [mphillip]
Eric: Not available next week (at EclipseCon) - would anyone else like to chair?
16:45:41 [mphillip]
Phil: We probably have enough actions to be getting on with
16:46:08 [mphillip]
Agreed, could use the time to progress actions
16:49:03 [mphillip]
AOB:
16:49:25 [mphillip]
action Eric to come uo with counter proposal for issue 31 (isFault)
16:49:26 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-156 - Come uo with counter proposal for issue 31 (isFault) [on Eric Johnson - due 2010-03-23].
16:49:36 [eric]
s/uo/up/
16:51:04 [Zakim]
-padams
16:51:06 [Zakim]
- +1.919.663.aadd
16:51:07 [Zakim]
-Yves
16:51:09 [mphillip]
NOTE: Next meeting on 30th - normal time
16:51:09 [Zakim]
-mphillip
16:51:09 [Zakim]
WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has ended
16:51:10 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.209.474.aaaa, +0196270aabb, +1.512.286.aacc, Yves, padams, eric, mphillip, +1.919.663.aadd
16:51:29 [mphillip]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:51:29 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/03/16-soap-jms-minutes.html mphillip
16:51:32 [padams]
padams has left #soap-jms
18:21:38 [mphillip]
mphillip has joined #soap-jms
18:28:11 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #soap-jms
18:48:22 [mphillip]
mphillip has left #soap-jms
19:29:27 [eric]
eric has joined #soap-jms
19:29:46 [eric]
eric has left #soap-jms