See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 21 December 2010
<eric> Peter, are you going to make it on the phone?
<scribe> Scribe: Mark
No objections to approving minutes
We will skip the meeting on 28th Dec.
Assume meeting of 4th Jan will proceed
Mark: Acions 230, 234, and 235 are done
<trackbot> ACTION-230 Apply the changes for ISSUE-67 closed
<trackbot> ACTION-234 Apply the resolution for ISSUE-68 closed
<trackbot> ACTION-235 Get details of potential BytesMessageproblem closed
Peter: ACTION-233 is done - CXF have implemented the change
<trackbot> ACTION-233 Forward proposal for ISSUE-65 to CXF folk for their approval closed
Waiting for second implementation
ISSUE-69 - BytesMessage Ambiguity
Amy: In favour of amendment
Peter: No objections
RESOLUTION: ISSUE-69 is open
Eric: Wonder if the two MUSTs can be merged into one. Is it testable. Does it warrant a new assertion?
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
<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.
RESOLUTION: Eric's amended proposal (above) is accepted
action mark to apply the resolution as written in the chat
<trackbot> Created ACTION-236 - Apply the resolution as written in the chat [on Mark Phillips - due 2010-12-28].
Deferred for a minute
Correct specification link and diff link above
RESOLUTION: Application of resolution for ISSUE-67 is accepted
Back to ISSUE-65: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/65
RESOLUTION: Proposal of resolution for ISSUE-65 is accepted
<scribe> ACTION: Mark to apply the resolution for ISSUE-65 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/12/21-soap-jms-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-237 - Apply the resolution for ISSUE-65 [on Mark Phillips - due 2010-12-28].
<eric> Is this the link: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms.xml.diff?r1=1.106&r2=1.107&f=h
Some discussion on the mailing list on whether the example should use the 4 paramter send method instead of the producer
Amy: It is not incorrect - in some cases it makes sense to use the producer as long as within thread boundaries
Eric: For documentation purposes the more wordy methods in the sample make it clearer
RESOLUTION: Application of resolution for ISSUE-68 is accepted
<scribe> ACTION: mark to roll back incorrectly applied changes to CR [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/12/21-soap-jms-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-238 - Roll back incorrectly applied changes to CR [on Mark Phillips - due 2010-12-28].
Unaddressed feedback here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg02090.html
Eric: Feedback from Tim
... Will respond in the new year once the public review period has closed
... Awaiting feedback from Oracle after reminder
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: +1.919.663.aaaa, alewis, +1.650.846.aabb, eric, +44.196.287.aacc, mark, +1.617.519.aadd, peaston Present: +1.919.663.aaaa alewis +1.650.846.aabb eric +44.196.287.aacc mark +1.617.519.aadd peaston Found Date: 21 Dec 2010 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/12/21-soap-jms-minutes.html People with action items: mark WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]