IRC log of soap-jms on 2011-02-22

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:57:36 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #soap-jms
16:57:36 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:57:38 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:57:38 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #soap-jms
16:57:40 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SJMS
16:57:40 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
16:57:41 [trackbot]
Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference
16:57:41 [trackbot]
Date: 22 February 2011
16:57:52 [mphillip1]
chair: Eric
16:58:13 [alewis]
alewis has joined #soap-jms
16:59:07 [Zakim]
WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has now started
16:59:13 [Zakim]
+ +1.919.663.aaaa
17:00:27 [mgolbyki]
mgolbyki has joined #soap-jms
17:01:05 [padams2]
padams2 has joined #soap-jms
17:01:10 [Zakim]
17:01:43 [Zakim]
17:02:19 [Zakim]
17:03:02 [Zakim]
17:03:30 [mphillip1]
zakim, who's here?
17:03:30 [Zakim]
On the phone I see alewis, padams, AndyColeman
17:03:31 [Zakim]
On IRC I see padams, mgolbyki, alewis, Zakim, RRSAgent, mphillip1, trackbot, Yves
17:04:16 [Zakim]
17:04:44 [eric]
eric has joined #soap-jms
17:06:32 [mphillip1]
Topic: Appointment of the scribe
17:06:41 [mphillip1]
scribe: mark
17:06:55 [mphillip1]
Topic: Approval of prior meeting minutes
17:07:04 [mphillip1]
17:07:36 [mphillip1]
No objections to approving the minutes
17:07:42 [mphillip1]
Topic: Review the agenda
17:09:51 [mphillip1]
Agenda approved as-is
17:09:56 [mphillip1]
Topic: Administrative items
17:10:04 [mphillip1]
RESOLUTION: We will skip next week's call
17:10:10 [mphillip1]
Topic: Action Items
17:11:03 [mphillip1]
146 - still waiting for Oracle
17:12:00 [mphillip1]
243 - no news from TIBCO, but unlikely to make further progress
17:12:12 [mphillip1]
close action-243
17:12:12 [trackbot]
ACTION-243 Tofind out what TIBCOare doing with Websphere (re: compatibility testing and latest versions) closed
17:13:05 [mphillip1]
244 - See public list archives for details - CXF support JMS addresses in the WSDL, but not the extension properties
17:13:37 [mphillip1]
Eric will do more investigation
17:13:53 [mphillip1]
Phil: No prgress on 223
17:14:02 [mphillip1]
Topic: Moving to PR (via CR? & LC)
17:16:06 [mphillip1]
Mark: If CXF don't support WSDL properties, would we consider making the properties part of WSDL optional?
17:16:50 [mphillip1]
Amy: The WSDL section is optional, but we could consider breaking it into two pieces (WSDL core which would be URI support) and WSDL extensions (the properties)
17:17:35 [mphillip1]
mgk: Base WSDL support would be the URI plus the SOAP transport
17:18:08 [mphillip1]
Amy: Yes, the heirarchical property support could become an extension
17:18:45 [mphillip1]
Phil: An implementation must support the URI - the fact that URI may exist in the port of a WSDL document doesn't mean the implementation supports WSDL
17:19:30 [mphillip1]
Amy: True - that's the way the specification is currently written (i.e. to support WSDL an implementation must support everything in the WSDL section)
17:20:41 [mphillip1]
Amy: But if implementors are not supporting the properties, then should we force them to support it? - perhaps it hasn't proved to be useful.
17:22:12 [mphillip1]
Amy: Propose we change the specification to make it clear that there is a core WSDL, and additional (optional) heirarchical properties. This allows implementors to claim support for WSDL without forcing them to implement something they may not find useful.
17:23:05 [mphillip1]
Phil: Giving implementors a choice to a) Not support WSDL; b) Support only the transport property and URI; c) Support everything - URIs and heirarchical properties
17:24:22 [mphillip1]
Eric: There are 4 normative assertions about WSDL - WSDL-Usage-3003 and WSDL-Usage-3004 would be core WSDL, and WSDL-Usage-3001and WSDL-Usage-3002 would be extensions
17:25:12 [mphillip1]
Eric: We could make the core WSDL a normative part of the base specification, and leave the properties as a WSDL extension.
17:25:31 [mphillip1]
Amy: +1 for moving the core WSDL to normative status
17:27:25 [mphillip1]
Eric: If we make heirarchical WSDL property support optional then it may be possible that we would only require one implementation to progress the specification
17:27:37 [mphillip1]
Eric: Would not be in favour of making it non-normative
17:28:03 [mphillip1]
action eric to check with Yves if we could allow only on implementation of the optional WSDL part
17:28:03 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-245 - Check with Yves if we could allow only on implementation of the optional WSDL part [on Eric Johnson - due 2011-03-01].
17:28:13 [mphillip1]
17:29:19 [mphillip1]
Topic: Specification Issues
17:30:12 [mphillip1]
Just issue 27 open - (the URI scheme is in the publication queue - should be published by the end of March)
17:30:26 [mphillip1]
this should allow us to resolve issue 27
17:30:34 [eric]
eric has joined #soap-jms
17:30:45 [mphillip1]
Topic: URI scheme
17:34:06 [mphillip1]
Mark: Amanda Baber has sent a note to authors asking for confirmation about changes
17:35:03 [mphillip1]
17:35:19 [mphillip1]
17:35:51 [mphillip1]
Reminder:- next meeting is March 8th
17:35:57 [Zakim]
17:35:58 [Zakim]
17:36:00 [Zakim]
17:36:00 [Zakim]
17:36:00 [Zakim]
WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has ended
17:36:01 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.919.663.aaaa, alewis, padams, eric, mgolbyki, mphillip1
17:36:14 [eric]
eric has joined #soap-jms
17:36:24 [mphillip1]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:36:24 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate mphillip1
17:36:31 [mphillip1]
rrsagent, make log public
17:37:12 [padams]
padams has left #soap-jms
17:51:18 [mphillip1]
mphillip1 has left #soap-jms
17:54:08 [mgolbyki]
mgolbyki has joined #soap-jms
17:54:19 [mgolbyki]
mgolbyki has left #soap-jms
19:17:56 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #soap-jms