See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 04 January 2011
<scribe> Scribe: Eric
No comments on agenda.
eric: Any possibility of a face to face?
Derek: made a little progress on
... Will try to review by next week.... Will run them hopefully after next product release.
... Don't know exactly when QA will be free, probably another month or two.
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.
... need to figure out how to solve some of the challenges.
eric: For action 236, email from Mark: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Dec/0025.html
<trackbot> ACTION-236 Apply the resolution as written in the chat closed
eric: For action 238, email from Mark: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Dec/0024.html
<trackbot> ACTION-238 Roll back incorrectly applied changes to CR closed
eric: Mark's application of issue 69: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Dec/0025.html
Derek: Question - do we need to raise an issue - we don't apparently require that implementations support BytesMessage.
Phil: Looks like receiving node text implies that both are required.
Derek: I thought our intent was that BytesMessage required, TextMessage optional.
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.
Derek: I have no problem with updating section 2.4
Phil: Text in 2.6.2 - receiving node cannot make assumptions, and must respond in a like fashion.
Derek: Really want a clear statement. Section 184.108.40.206 does impose this requirement, but it isn't clear.
Phil: We could add something to this section.
Derek: Where does this sentence belong? 2.6 or 2.4?
Phil: Don't think it belongs in
... explicit requirement only on the receiving node.
eric: There may be server scenarios where allowing a TextMessage response could impose a memory burden on the server.
Derek: I'd prefer to have a clarification right in 2.4.
eric: Can you formulate a concrete issue and proposal?
<scribe> ACTION: Derek to raise new issue to clarify requirements around which message types must be supported. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2011/01/04-soap-jms-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-239 - Raise new issue to clarify requirements around which message types must be supported. [on Derek Rokicki - due 2011-01-11].
eric: back to issue 69.
Resolution: application of resolution of 69 approved.
eric: Expecting possible feedback from Oracle around the 12th of Jan. Otherwise, just the comments from IANA and Tim Bray.
rssagent, generate logs
rrsagent: please generate logs
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) Found Scribe: Eric Inferring ScribeNick: eric Default Present: alewis, +1.512.286.aaaa, +1.708.246.aabb, eric, Derek, padams Present: alewis +1.512.286.aaaa +1.708.246.aabb eric Derek padams Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2011Jan/0000.html WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 04 Jan 2011 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2011/01/04-soap-jms-minutes.html People with action items: derek[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]