SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference

31 Aug 2010

See also: IRC log


alewis, +1.708.246.aaaa, Mark, +1.650.846.aabb, peaston, +1.512.286.aacc, padams


<trackbot> Date: 31 August 2010

Appointment of the scribe

<scribe> Scribe: Mark

Approval of prior meeting minutes

Minutes are approved without modification

Review the agenda

No modifications to agenda

Administrative items


Review action items

Eric: 146 and 181 pending

Derek: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/191 - done

Eric: We can discuss in "raised spec. issues"
... 193 is pending

Mark 201 is done

close action-201

<trackbot> ACTION-201 Apply the resolutions for issues 56, 57, 58 closed

close action-191

<trackbot> ACTION-191 Raise an issue regarding targetService and the missing fault closed

Eric: Actions 202 still pending - 204, 205 and 206 complete

close action-204

<trackbot> ACTION-204 Apply the resolution for issue 48 closed

close action-205

<trackbot> ACTION-205 Apply the resolution for issue 55 closed

close action-206

<trackbot> ACTION-206 Apply the resolution for the issue described in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Aug/0016.html closed

Mark: action 207 complete

close action-207

<trackbot> ACTION-207 Finish proposal for issue http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Aug/0017.html closed

Raised spec issues:


Derek: The issue is that faults are missing for the assertions which state that targetService and soapAction must appear in the message

Discussion on proposal in Derek's note

Derek: Concern that fault may be thrown erroneously if soapAction is overridden in the environment or elsewhere

Phil: Ideally we'd word this so that the implementer of the service provider can throw the exception if it needs soapAction, (but it is up to the provider)

Derek: We can say that this is the fault code to use, without being over-prescriptive about the circumstances in which it is used
... TargetService can't be overridden, so the server must throw the fault for targetService if it is missing. but soapAction can be overridden so needs to be optional

action Derek to raise two formal issues for the soapAction and targetService faults

<trackbot> Created ACTION-208 - Raise two formal issues for the soapAction and targetService faults [on Derek Rokicki - due 2010-09-07].

Mark: The proposal needs to mention the new faults in section 2.8

Accepting proposals to close open issues


<eric> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Aug/0026.html

Mark: Note superfluous colon should be removed from start of element:

<:tns:TradePriceRequest xmlns:tns="

Peter: Checking - SOAP header elements don't appear in WSDL ?

Phil: Correct

RESOLUTION: Proposal accepted with modified XML

action mark to apply the proposal for issue 61

<trackbot> Created ACTION-209 - Apply the proposal for issue 61 [on Mark Phillips - due 2010-09-07].

Accepting applied resolutions:


<eric> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Aug/0028.html

Eric: Fixes unflagged assertions, and deferring to definition of contentType

RESOLUTION: The application of the resolution for Issue-48 has been accepted


<eric> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Aug/0029.html

RESOLUTION: The application of the resolution for Issue-55 has been accepted


<eric> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Aug/0025.html

Changed references to be normative, or informative, and ensured correct format for W3C links

RESOLUTION: The application of the resolution for Issue-58 has been accepted


<eric> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Aug/0030.html

Eric: Addition of complete WSDL sample
... (Generated HTML shows a lot of changes because the new section introduces ToC and other changes )

RESOLUTION: The application of the resolution for Issue-60 has been accepted

Moving to PR (via CR)

Eric: Derek is raising two new issues - once those and the other outstanding issues are complete we will be ready to change the document to PR (by changing the status at the top of the document) and record the changes that were made in CR

URI scheme

<eric> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Aug/0011.html

Discussion on Alexey's email

Must follow precedence rules from SOAP/JMS (2.2)

Eric: Delivery mode - should it be case-sensitive?

Discussion conclusion Delivery mode - should be case sensitive

Amy: What about parameter order?

Phil: Only matters if multiple instances are specified

Eric: Out of time - will send out a draft




Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2010/09/10 14:10:13 $