IRC log of soap-jms on 2011-01-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:58:47 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #soap-jms
16:58:47 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:58:49 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:58:49 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #soap-jms
16:58:51 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SJMS
16:58:51 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
16:58:52 [trackbot]
Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference
16:58:52 [trackbot]
Date: 04 January 2011
16:59:17 [Zakim]
WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has now started
16:59:24 [Zakim]
17:00:12 [Zakim]
+ +1.512.286.aaaa
17:00:32 [Derek]
Derek has joined #SOAP-JMS
17:01:39 [Zakim]
+ +1.708.246.aabb
17:03:36 [Zakim]
17:04:18 [padams2]
padams2 has joined #soap-jms
17:06:04 [eric]
eric has joined #soap-jms
17:06:46 [Derek]
Zakim, aabb is Derek
17:06:46 [Zakim]
+Derek; got it
17:06:51 [eric]
Scribe: Eric
17:06:56 [padams]
Zakim, who is here?
17:06:56 [Zakim]
On the phone I see alewis, +1.512.286.aaaa, Derek, eric
17:06:57 [Zakim]
On IRC I see eric, padams, Derek, Zakim, RRSAgent, alewis, trackbot, Yves
17:07:06 [padams]
Zakim, aaaa is padams
17:07:06 [Zakim]
+padams; got it
17:07:28 [eric]
17:08:19 [eric]
Topic: Approval of previous meetings minutes
17:08:25 [eric]
No objections.
17:08:31 [eric]
Topic: Review Agenda
17:09:44 [eric]
No comments on agenda.
17:11:52 [eric]
Topic: Administrative items
17:12:06 [eric]
eric: Any possibility of a face to face?
17:12:11 [eric]
Derek: Unlikely
17:12:15 [eric]
Phil: Unlikely
17:12:20 [eric]
Topic: Action items
17:12:46 [eric]
Derek: made a little progress on action 222
17:13:38 [eric]
Derek: Will try to review by next week.... Will run them hopefully after next product release.
17:13:56 [eric]
Derek: Don't know exactly when QA will be free, probably another month or two.
17:14:58 [eric]
Phil: Status is exactly the same as Derek's. Didn't actually build the test. Do see some challenges to make it work, don't know for sure that I can make it work with a reasonable effort. Alternative is to duplicate the work for WAS.
17:15:08 [eric]
... need to figure out how to solve some of the challenges.
17:15:56 [eric]
eric: For action 236, email from Mark:
17:16:24 [eric]
close action-236
17:16:24 [trackbot]
ACTION-236 Apply the resolution as written in the chat closed
17:16:55 [eric]
eric: For action 238, email from Mark:
17:19:01 [eric]
close action-238
17:19:01 [trackbot]
ACTION-238 Roll back incorrectly applied changes to CR closed
17:19:32 [eric]
Topic: Moving to PR
17:20:16 [eric]
No discussion
17:20:23 [eric]
Topic: Specification issues.
17:21:35 [eric]
eric: Mark's application of issue 69:
17:26:18 [Zakim]
17:29:16 [eric]
Derek: Question - do we need to raise an issue - we don't apparently require that implementations support BytesMessage.
17:29:32 [eric]
Phil: Looks like receiving node text implies that both are required.
17:29:51 [eric]
Derek: I thought our intent was that BytesMessage required, TextMessage optional.
17:30:40 [eric]
Phil: I read it that a receiving node must support both, due to the constraint of responding in the way that it received a message. A simple sending component only needs to support one.
17:31:09 [eric]
Derek: I have no problem with updating section 2.4
17:34:07 [eric]
Phil: Text in 2.6.2 - receiving node cannot make assumptions, and must respond in a like fashion.
17:35:03 [eric]
Derek: Really want a clear statement. Section does impose this requirement, but it isn't clear.
17:35:11 [eric]
Phil: We could add something to this section.
17:36:08 [eric]
Derek: Where does this sentence belong? 2.6 or 2.4?
17:36:24 [eric]
Phil: Don't think it belongs in 2.4...
17:36:35 [eric]
... explicit requirement only on the receiving node.
17:40:36 [eric]
eric: There may be server scenarios where allowing a TextMessage response could impose a memory burden on the server.
17:42:19 [eric]
Derek: I'd prefer to have a clarification right in 2.4.
17:43:02 [eric]
eric: Can you formulate a concrete issue and proposal?
17:43:05 [eric]
Derek: yes.
17:43:47 [eric]
action: Derek to raise new issue to clarify requirements around which message types must be supported.
17:43:47 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-239 - Raise new issue to clarify requirements around which message types must be supported. [on Derek Rokicki - due 2011-01-11].
17:45:00 [eric]
eric: back to issue 69.
17:45:56 [eric]
Resolution: application of resolution of 69 approved.
17:46:53 [eric]
Topic: URI scheme
17:48:48 [eric]
eric: Expecting possible feedback from Oracle around the 12th of Jan. Otherwise, just the comments from IANA and Tim Bray.
17:48:57 [eric]
Topic: AOB
17:49:23 [Zakim]
17:49:24 [Zakim]
17:49:24 [Zakim]
17:49:25 [Zakim]
WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has ended
17:49:27 [Zakim]
Attendees were alewis, +1.512.286.aaaa, +1.708.246.aabb, eric, Derek, padams
17:49:32 [eric]
rssagent, generate logs
17:49:50 [eric]
rrsagent: please generate logs
17:49:50 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'please generate logs', eric. Try /msg RRSAgent help
17:51:33 [padams]
padams has left #soap-jms
17:52:19 [Yves]
rrsagent, draft logs
17:52:19 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'draft logs', Yves. Try /msg RRSAgent help
17:52:31 [Yves]
rrsagent, draft minutes
17:52:31 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate Yves
19:41:06 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #soap-jms