<trackbot> Date: 16 March 2010

trackbot, start telcon

<trackbot> Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 16 March 2010

1) Appointment of the scribe

<scribe> scribe: Mphillip

Review the agenda

Review action items

Mark: No progress on 138,147,148

Eric: 143 is completed (see:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Mar/0016.html)

Eric: as are 149 and 151 (see links in agenda()
... 146 and 152 still pending

close action-143

<trackbot> ACTION-143 Ensure that we have tests for all the WSDL assertions closed

close action-149

<trackbot> ACTION-149 Update testcase 6,7 to fix text in "message flow" section to reflect changes made to WSDL fragment closed

close action-151

<trackbot> ACTION-151 Develop a proposal for how to address protocol-2015 closed

Phil: No progress on 150

URI specification

Nothing to add - Eric has action item to follow up with Oracle

Moving to PR

See:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Mar/0018.html

Eric: We are close to moving towards public review

Phil: Agreed

Mark: Agreed

<Yves> note form the CR status of the document: SOTD

<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:

<Yves> 1.

<Yves> At least two implementations have demonstrated interoperability of each feature.

<Yves> 2.

<Yves> All issues raised during the CR period against this document have received formal responses.

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)

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

Eric: As we've discussed, we could have a bare bones JMS test harness which dummys up the request and identifies the expected response
... Practically we may not have the resources to set up a full interop test
... Can we take these back to our product teams and see what they can do

Yves: When we did interrop tests for WS-Databiding the test was an echo from the toolkit serialising and deserialisng which was enough to show if there were problems

<Yves> s/WS-Databinding/XML Schema Patterns for Databinding/

mphillip: We should be able to do some interop testing within different implementations in IBM, and possibly could share the trace from the test

Eric: ...and the tests and trace do not need to be made public... this may be something that we only share amongst ourselves
... or we buy some resources on (for example) the Amazon cloud, and set up images which we use to demostrate interoperability

action Eric to investigate feasibility of operating JMS in the cloud

<trackbot> Created ACTION-153 - Investigate feasibility of operating JMS in the cloud [on Eric Johnson - due 2010-03-23].

Phil: "At least two implementations have demonstrated interoperability of each feature." - does this just mean each required feature - i.e. not WSDL

Yves: Correct - this does not have to include optional features - though ideally it would

action mark to Investigate IBM's legal position in sharing or using IBM product test suites in interops tests

<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].

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
... i.e. Can we still test all the normative assertions without the WSDL tests

action Phil to check that we have coverage of all non-WSDL assertions if we do not run the WSDL tests

<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].

Next Week's Meeting

Eric: Not available next week (at EclipseCon) - would anyone else like to chair?

Phil: We probably have enough actions to be getting on with

Agreed, could use the time to progress actions

AOB:

action Eric to come uo with counter proposal for issue 31 (isFault)

<trackbot> Created ACTION-156 - Come up with counter proposal for issue 31 (isFault) [on Eric Johnson - due 2010-03-23].

NOTE: Next meeting on 30th - normal time

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)

Succeeded: s/WSI/WS-Databiding/
FAILED: s/WS-Databinding/XML Schema Patterns for Databinding/
Succeeded: s/uo/up/
Found Scribe: Mphillip
Inferring ScribeNick: mphillip
Default Present: +1.209.474.aaaa, +0196270aabb, +1.512.286.aacc, Yves, padams, eric, mphillip, +1.919.663.aadd
Present: +1.209.474.aaaa +0196270aabb +1.512.286.aacc Yves padams eric mphillip +1.919.663.aadd
Found Date: 16 Mar 2010
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/03/16-soap-jms-minutes.html
People with action items: 

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