<trackbot> Date: 13 April 2010

Appointment of the scribe

<scribe> scribe: Mark

Approval of prior meeting minutes

Minutes from 30/03 were approved

Minutes from 6/04 were approved

Review the agenda

Eric: Also need to discuss testing items - after Item 8 on agenda

Agenda approved with no other amendments

Review action items

Eric: No progress on 146

Mark: No progress on 148 and 154

Phil: Completed 155 and 157

close action-155

<trackbot> ACTION-155 Check that we have coverage of all non-WSDL assertions if we do not run the WSDL tests closed

close action-157

<trackbot> ACTION-157 Propose an alternate proposal to resolve issue 30 closed

URI specification

Still pushing Oracle for reply

Raised issues

Issue 29 still raised - awaiting action 148

Accepting proposals to close open issues

<eric> Issue 30 - existing proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Apr/0002.html

Phil: Proposed alternative resolution
... See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Apr/0006.html

Mark: wording is slightly different - can we make it consistent e.g. "then port" should be "then other properties set on the endpoint"

Eric: Agreed - we will revisit this issue when Phil has revised this proposal

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/31

Eric's revised proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Mar/0024.html

RESOLUTION: ALL approve the updated proposal

<padams> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Apr/0008.html

Phil's link above is the revised proposal for issue 30

No objections to revised proposal

RESOLUTION: ALL approve Phil's changes

Issue 32 - http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/32

http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-soap-jms-minutes.html

RESOLUTION: No objections to the proposed resolution to issue 32

Issue 33 : http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/33

http://www.w3.org/2010/04/06-soap-jms-minutes.html

RESOLUTION: All approve the proposed resolution to issue 33

Accepting applied resolutions

<scribe> ACTION: Phil to apply the resolutions to issue 30, 31, 32, and 33 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/13-soap-jms-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-159 - Apply the resolutions to issue 30, 31, 32, and 33 [on Phil Adams - due 2010-04-20].

Resolution for Issue 22:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Jan/0026.html

All approve the application of the resolution for Issue 22

RESOLUTION: Issue 22 can be closed

Issue 28: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/28

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Mar/0025.html

Discussion on whether topicReplyToName is allow in the JNDI variant

<eric> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-merrick-jms-uri-06.txt

Section 2.2.2 of binding spec confirms it is not valid for the jndi variant

All approve the application of the resolution for Issue 28

RESOLUTION: Issue 28 can be closed

Test assertions

<eric> Phil's email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Apr/0003.html

Phil: Temporarily modified testcases.xml to remove WSDL tests and built a new testcases document to find out which assertions are not covered. Observations in email.

Eric: Regarding proposal 5 - if using jndi how can you force the test to use a topic

Phil: The object defined to jndi wouldhave to be defined to be a topic - don't think the test needs to go as far as checking the object type to enforce it being a topic

Mark: Following that line of thought we *could* remove proposal 5 because everything we get out of jndi is a JMSDestination, but happy to leave it in

Peter: Agreed - feels more secure to leave it in

<scribe> ACTION: Phil to implement the test coverage proposals [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/04/13-soap-jms-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-160 - Implement the test coverage proposals [on Phil Adams - due 2010-04-20].

AOB

Eric: Will not be available next week - nor will Amy, so no TIBCO reps.... propose we skip next week's call and work on actions
... Need to think about how we get two different implementations that we can test together

Phil: Do we need two implementations from different companies?

Eric: Technically not, but it would be preferable
... The CXF project has an implementation, so that plus a vendor project would be sufficient

Phil: Is anyone from the working group companies involved in CXF?

Eric: Barrier to involvement with Apache projects should be fairly low

Next call - usual time 27th April

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: Mark
Default Present: padams, Peter_Easton, alewis, +1.708.246.aaaa, +0196270aabb, Mark, eric, Derek
Present: padams Peter_Easton alewis +1.708.246.aaaa +0196270aabb Mark eric Derek
Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Apr/0005.html

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 13 Apr 2010
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/04/13-soap-jms-minutes.html
People with action items: phil

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