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 http://www.w3.org/2011/01/04-soap-jms-irc

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]

+alewis

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]

+eric

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]

Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2011Jan/0000.html

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: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Dec/0025.html

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: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Dec/0024.html

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: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Dec/0025.html

17:26:18 [Zakim]

-alewis

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 2.6.2.3 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]

-eric

17:49:24 [Zakim]

-padams

17:49:24 [Zakim]

-Derek

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 http://www.w3.org/2011/01/04-soap-jms-minutes.html Yves

19:41:06 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #soap-jms