IRC log of soap-jms on 2010-12-21

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:56:16 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #soap-jms
16:56:16 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:56:18 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:56:18 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #soap-jms
16:56:20 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SJMS
16:56:20 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM scheduled to start in 4 minutes
16:56:21 [trackbot]
Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference
16:56:21 [trackbot]
Date: 21 December 2010
16:58:34 [Zakim]
WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has now started
16:58:41 [Zakim]
+ +1.919.663.aaaa
17:00:55 [mphillip]
mphillip has joined #soap-jms
17:01:48 [Zakim]
+ +1.650.846.aabb
17:02:39 [Zakim]
+ +44.196.287.aacc
17:02:52 [eric]
eric has joined #soap-jms
17:02:59 [mphillip]
zakim, aacc is mark
17:02:59 [Zakim]
+mark; got it
17:03:12 [eric]
Zakim, who is here?
17:03:12 [Zakim]
On the phone I see alewis, eric, mark
17:03:13 [Zakim]
On IRC I see eric, mphillip, Zakim, RRSAgent, trackbot, alewis, Yves
17:05:14 [peaston]
peaston has joined #soap-jms
17:06:51 [eric]
Peter, are you going to make it on the phone?
17:08:01 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.519.aadd
17:08:07 [mphillip]
TOPIC: Appointment of the scribe
17:08:14 [mphillip]
Chair: Eric
17:08:17 [mphillip]
Scribe: Mark
17:08:48 [mphillip]
TOPIC: Approval of prior meeting minutes
17:08:59 [mphillip]
No objections to approving minutes
17:09:08 [mphillip]
TOPIC: Review the agenda
17:09:38 [mphillip]
We will skip the meeting on 28th Dec.
17:09:57 [mphillip]
Assume meeting of 4th Jan will proceed
17:10:04 [mphillip]
TOPIC: Review Action Items
17:10:31 [mphillip]
Mark: Acions 230, 234, and 235 are done
17:10:40 [mphillip]
close action-230
17:10:40 [trackbot]
ACTION-230 Apply the changes for ISSUE-67 closed
17:10:43 [mphillip]
close action-234
17:10:43 [trackbot]
ACTION-234 Apply the resolution for ISSUE-68 closed
17:10:45 [mphillip]
close action-235
17:10:45 [trackbot]
ACTION-235 Get details of potential BytesMessageproblem closed
17:11:25 [mphillip]
Peter: ACTION-233 is done - CXF have implemented the change
17:11:27 [mphillip]
close action-233
17:11:27 [trackbot]
ACTION-233 Forward proposal for ISSUE-65 to CXF folk for their approval closed
17:11:41 [mphillip]
TOPIC: Moving to PR (via CR? & LC)
17:12:12 [mphillip]
Waiting for second implementation
17:13:13 [mphillip]
TOPIC: Specification Issues:
17:13:39 [mphillip]
ISSUE-69 - BytesMessage Ambiguity
17:13:46 [eric]
17:16:07 [mphillip]
Amy: In favour of amendment
17:16:16 [mphillip]
Peter: No objections
17:16:25 [mphillip]
17:19:11 [mphillip]
Eric: Wonder if the two MUSTs can be merged into one. Is it testable. Does it warrant a new assertion?
17:22:49 [mphillip]
Amy: Don't think it's testable - not based on a documented wire protocol - could be phrased as a warning because results will be unpredictable if writeBytes/readBytes not used
17:23:14 [eric]
Alternate: If the message is formatted as a JMS BytesMessage, then the sender and and receiver MUST use the writeBytes() and readBytes() methods, respectively.
17:28:28 [mphillip]
RESOLUTION: Eric's amended proposal (above) is accepted
17:29:00 [mphillip]
action mark to apply the resolution as written in the chat
17:29:00 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-236 - Apply the resolution as written in the chat [on Mark Phillips - due 2010-12-28].
17:29:22 [mphillip]
17:33:04 [mphillip]
Deferred for a minute
17:33:06 [mphillip]
17:33:23 [mphillip]
17:35:17 [mphillip]
17:35:56 [eric]
17:36:41 [mphillip]
Correct specification link and diff link above
17:37:45 [mphillip]
RESOLUTION: Application of resolution for ISSUE-67 is accepted
17:38:16 [mphillip]
Back to ISSUE-65:
17:38:43 [eric]
17:39:42 [mphillip]
RESOLUTION: Proposal of resolution for ISSUE-65 is accepted
17:39:58 [mphillip]
action: Mark to apply the resolution for ISSUE-65
17:39:58 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-237 - Apply the resolution for ISSUE-65 [on Mark Phillips - due 2010-12-28].
17:40:11 [mphillip]
17:40:38 [eric]
Is this the link:
17:42:31 [mphillip]
Some discussion on the mailing list on whether the example should use the 4 paramter send method instead of the producer
17:45:59 [mphillip]
Amy: It is not incorrect - in some cases it makes sense to use the producer as long as within thread boundaries
17:46:29 [mphillip]
Eric: For documentation purposes the more wordy methods in the sample make it clearer
17:46:53 [mphillip]
RESOLUTION: Application of resolution for ISSUE-68 is accepted
17:47:59 [mphillip]
action: mark to roll back incorrectly applied changes to CR
17:47:59 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-238 - Roll back incorrectly applied changes to CR [on Mark Phillips - due 2010-12-28].
17:48:12 [mphillip]
TOPIC: URI scheme
17:48:24 [mphillip]
Unaddressed feedback here:
17:48:48 [mphillip]
Eric: Feedback from Tim Bray
17:49:32 [mphillip]
Eric: Will respond in the new year once the public review period has closed
17:50:01 [mphillip]
Eric: Awaiting feedback from Oracle after reminder
17:51:33 [mphillip]
17:51:50 [mphillip]
17:52:13 [Zakim]
17:52:14 [Zakim]
17:52:14 [Zakim]
17:52:16 [Zakim]
17:52:17 [Zakim]
WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has ended
17:52:19 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.919.663.aaaa, alewis, +1.650.846.aabb, eric, +44.196.287.aacc, mark, +1.617.519.aadd, peaston
17:53:38 [eric]
rrsagent, please generate logs
17:53:38 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'please generate logs', eric. Try /msg RRSAgent help
17:54:03 [eric]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:54:03 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate eric
17:54:19 [eric]
rrsagent, make logs public
17:54:28 [eric]
eric has left #soap-jms
19:12:50 [mphillip]
mphillip has left #soap-jms
19:59:51 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #soap-jms