IRC log of soap-jms on 2010-11-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:00:08 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #soap-jms

17:00:08 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/11/30-soap-jms-irc

17:00:10 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, make logs public

17:00:10 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #soap-jms

17:00:12 [trackbot]

Zakim, this will be SJMS

17:00:12 [Zakim]

ok, trackbot; I see WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM scheduled to start now

17:00:13 [trackbot]

Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference

17:00:13 [trackbot]

Date: 30 November 2010

17:00:32 [padams]

Zakim, who is here?

17:00:32 [Zakim]

WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has not yet started, padams

17:00:33 [Zakim]

On IRC I see RRSAgent, padams, mphillip, trackbot, Yves

17:01:09 [eric]

eric has joined #soap-jms

17:01:20 [peaston]

peaston has joined #soap-jms

17:01:22 [alewis]

alewis has joined #soap-jms

17:01:50 [Derek]

Derek has joined #SOAP-JMS

17:01:52 [Zakim]

+Mark

17:02:01 [mphillip]

trackbot, start telcon

17:02:03 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, make logs public

17:02:05 [trackbot]

Zakim, this will be SJMS

17:02:05 [Zakim]

ok, trackbot; I see WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM scheduled to start 2 minutes ago

17:02:06 [trackbot]

Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference

17:02:06 [trackbot]

Date: 30 November 2010

17:03:13 [eric]

Zakim, aabb is me

17:03:13 [Zakim]

+eric; got it

17:03:55 [mphillip]

TOPIC: Appointment of the scribe

17:04:01 [mphillip]

Scribe: Mark

17:04:20 [mphillip]

Chair: Eric

17:04:29 [mphillip]

TOPIC: Approval of prior meeting minutes

17:04:34 [mphillip]

http://www.w3.org/2010/11/16-soap-jms-minutes.html

17:05:22 [mphillip]

RESOLUTION: Minutes are approved

17:05:30 [mphillip]

TOPIC: Review the agenda

17:06:17 [mphillip]

No changes to agenda

17:06:20 [mphillip]

TOPIC: Administrative items

17:06:44 [mphillip]

Eric: The workgroup charter was scheduled to expire this December

17:07:29 [mphillip]

Eric: That isn't a problem as long as the WG is seen to be making progress, however Yves has extended our charter to the middle of next year

17:07:45 [mphillip]

TOPIC: Review action items

17:08:00 [mphillip]

Eric: No progress on 146, or 202

17:08:20 [mphillip]

Derek: Started looking at 222 - still in progress

17:08:37 [mphillip]

Phil: 223 still pending

17:09:21 [mphillip]

Peter: 225 (testcase mods arising from action 219) - now done

17:09:25 [mphillip]

close action-225

17:09:25 [trackbot]

ACTION-225 Apply Action-219 changes to test spec closed

17:09:54 [mphillip]

Phil: ACTION-227 is done - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Nov/0035.html

17:10:20 [mphillip]

close action-227

17:10:20 [trackbot]

ACTION-227 Raise issue on the SOAP/JMS namespace distinction between SOAP 1.1 and 1.2 and present proposal closed

17:10:30 [mphillip]

Eric: 228 is done

17:10:35 [mphillip]

close action-228

17:10:35 [trackbot]

ACTION-228 Come up with a proposal for Issue-65 closed

17:11:10 [mphillip]

Phil: 229 - is done - see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Nov/0036.html

17:11:25 [mphillip]

close action-229

17:11:25 [trackbot]

ACTION-229 Come up with a proposal for Issue-65 closed

17:11:48 [mphillip]

TOPIC: Moving to PR (via CR? & LC)

17:14:26 [mphillip]

Mark: Starting to look at whether IBM's WebSphere Message Broker can be tested against CXF (an independent implementation from WebSphere App Server)

17:15:18 [mphillip]

Phil: What about pending chages e.g. Issue 65?

17:15:33 [mphillip]

Eric: For the purposes of moving to PR, implementations must conform to last published draft.

17:15:49 [mphillip]

TOPIC: Specification Issues:

17:15:59 [mphillip]

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/67

17:17:45 [mphillip]

Phil: JAX-WS provides a value that can be used by an endpoint developer in the Binding type annotation to specify the SOAP version and the transport. Our Binding spec only defines a single namespace, and so is insufficient to denote both SOAP version(1.1 or 1.2) and transport (JMS)

17:18:14 [mphillip]

Phil: Proposal is to define 2 values - one for SOAP 1.1 and the other for SOAP 1.2

17:19:08 [mphillip]

See propoalin ISSUE-67 following the text "Regarding specific changes to the binding spec to resolve this issue"...

17:19:41 [mphillip]

s/propoalin/proposal in/

17:21:07 [mphillip]

RESOLUTION: no objections - ISSUE-67 is opened

17:26:33 [mphillip]

Mark: Do we need to update namespace table etc. in spec.

17:27:07 [mphillip]

Phil: No, should keep everything else the same - these are new namespace values

17:28:03 [mphillip]

Eric: *Could* add these in as additional normative values in spec. but can't see any concrete use cases for that

17:28:42 [mphillip]

Eric: Suggest dropping the last paragraph in the proposal (which begins "Ideally, these values would be defined by the JAX-WS specification")

17:29:54 [mphillip]

Eric: ...and perhaps amend the previous paragraph to be more generalised - so that it doesn't just apply to JAX-WS

17:31:14 [mphillip]

Phil: Perhaps we could replace the final paragraph with some text that acknowledges that there may be some other technologies that would find these values useful

17:32:45 [mphillip]

Eric: That might be overkill unless we can think of concrete examples

17:33:18 [mphillip]

RESOLUTION: The proposal is approved with the final paragraph removed

17:34:09 [mphillip]

action mark to apply the changes for ISSUE-67

17:34:09 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-230 - Apply the changes for ISSUE-67 [on Mark Phillips - due 2010-12-07].

17:34:27 [mphillip]

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/68

17:37:42 [mphillip]

Eric: Public comments from the mailing list regarding the use of the API for Setting JMS Header properties

17:37:54 [mphillip]

Mark: Good spot - been in the spec for a long time

17:37:57 [mphillip]

Phil: +1

17:38:13 [mphillip]

RESOLUTION: The ISSUE-68 is opened

17:39:00 [mphillip]

action : mark to come up with a concrete proposal to resolve issue 68

17:39:00 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-231 - Come up with a concrete proposal to resolve issue 68 [on Mark Phillips - due 2010-12-07].

17:39:24 [mphillip]

TOPIC: Open Issues

17:39:52 [mphillip]

Eric: Changed spec. to point at revision 10 of URI scheme ( http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/27 )

17:40:03 [mphillip]

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/65

17:40:25 [mphillip]

Eric's proposal:

17:40:28 [eric]

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Nov/0033.html

17:40:59 [eric]

Issues to discuss: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Nov/0032.html

17:47:32 [mphillip]

Discussion: No way to find out what encodings a service provider supports.

17:48:28 [mphillip]

Eric: HTTP can determine what encodings a web server Accepts but this proposal does not include an equivalent

17:50:17 [mphillip]

Amy: We could simplfiy by saying that content-encoding can only be applied to single part messages

17:51:11 [mphillip]

Eric: Yes - that's a slightly different issue - do we wnat to allow this property for multi-part messages?

17:51:18 [mphillip]

s/wnat/want/

17:55:23 [mphillip]

Amy: In 2.2.3 we would add a bullet point that says soapjms:contentEncoding must not be used for multi-part messages

17:58:05 [mphillip]

Phil: If we adopt this as a normative change it will require changes to existing implementations - at a minimum, to check for this new property, and throw the appropriate SOAP fault if encoding is not supported

17:59:20 [alewis]

* Restriction: the property is not defined for composite messages (messages with a Content-Type of "multipart" or "message"), only for discrete messages (Content-Type "application" or "text", for this specification).

17:59:26 [mphillip]

Eric: we *could* soften the requirement in the final bullet in 2.2.3 to "SHOULD" so that existing implementations don't change

17:59:55 [mphillip]

Eric: If we keep the hard requirement we would need a new test to send a bogus encoding and ensure we get a fault back

18:00:38 [mphillip]

Phil: We shoud make it a MUST if we'e going to put it in at all

18:01:14 [mphillip]

Peter: Agree with the discussion - still pondering SHOULD vs. MUST for the fault

18:01:41 [mphillip]

Mark: If we add a new fault we will also need to add it to the schema

18:02:15 [mphillip]

Eric: If anyone cares strongly about the MUST then please make a counter proposal

18:03:12 [Zakim]

-padams

18:03:13 [Zakim]

-Derek

18:03:15 [Zakim]

- +1.781.280.aacc

18:03:17 [Zakim]

-alewis

18:03:19 [Zakim]

-eric

18:03:19 [mphillip]

Eric: to revise the proposal with Amy's addition and the fault in the proposal

18:03:25 [Zakim]

-Mark

18:03:27 [Zakim]

WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has ended

18:03:28 [Zakim]

Attendees were padams, +1.919.663.aaaa, Derek, Mark, +1.209.474.aabb, +1.781.280.aacc, alewis, eric

18:03:38 [mphillip]

action: Eric to revise the proposal with Amy's addition and the fault in the proposal

18:03:38 [trackbot]

Created ACTION-232 - Revise the proposal with Amy's addition and the fault in the proposal [on Eric Johnson - due 2010-12-07].

18:04:08 [mphillip]

rrsagent, make minutes

18:04:08 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/11/30-soap-jms-minutes.html mphillip

18:04:14 [padams]

padams has left #soap-jms

18:04:17 [mphillip]

rrsagent, make log public

18:04:33 [eric]

eric has left #soap-jms

18:07:22 [mphillip]

mphillip has left #soap-jms

19:03:44 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #soap-jms