16:53:33 RRSAgent has joined #soap-jms 16:53:33 logging to http://www.w3.org/2008/11/11-soap-jms-irc 16:54:24 RolandMerrick has changed the topic to: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Nov/0006.html 16:54:29 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Nov/0006.html 16:54:45 rrsgaent, make log public 16:55:12 Zakim, this will be WS_SOAP-JM 16:55:12 ok, RolandMerrick; I see WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM scheduled to start in 5 minutes 16:55:28 rrsagent, make minutes 16:55:28 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/11/11-soap-jms-minutes.html RolandMerrick 16:55:54 Chair: Roland 16:56:33 Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference 16:58:10 WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has now started 16:58:17 +alewis 16:59:00 +Roland 16:59:39 peaston has joined #soap-jms 17:00:49 +Peter_Easton 17:01:49 + +1.708.246.aaaa 17:02:32 Derek has joined #soap-jms 17:02:37 + +1.650.846.aabb 17:02:38 Zakim, aaaa is Derek 17:02:38 +Derek; got it 17:03:01 eric has joined #soap-jms 17:03:07 Zakim, aabb is eric 17:03:07 +eric; got it 17:04:13 scribe: eric 17:04:25 topic: outstanding actions 17:04:28 http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/open 17:06:02 no progress on any actions. 17:06:29 Does not appear that we're going to get any sign-off on the materials from Oracle, so we'll have to go recreate the FAQ. 17:06:47 topic: URI spec 17:07:39 + +1.408.956.aacc 17:07:49 Last phone call - discussed sending to IETF - but we'll have to wait on that. 17:08:22 eric: Unable to submit because IETF is not currently accepting - will resume accepting materials on the 17th of Nov. 17:08:43 Zakim, aacc is bhakti 17:08:43 +bhakti; got it 17:09:04 (returning to open actions) 17:09:33 bhakti has joined #soap-jms 17:09:55 bhakti will look at the discussion from our mailing list to pull together materials. 17:10:14 topic: binding spec 17:10:24 roland: just waiting for two things: 17:10:31 ... update to URI spec 17:10:42 ... and W3C process 17:11:08 ... should be able to publish it around the end of next week (2008-11-21) 17:11:39 ... Suggested to Yves that we would close the last call on the 6th of January. We'll deal with issues as they arise. 17:12:02 eric: How is it that you hit upon the 6th of Jan? 17:12:44 roland: normally about a month, but because of the holidays, defering a little, and that is a typical day for a conf. call. 17:14:11 + +1.512.918.aadd 17:14:17 eric: Suggest adding a week, because the first few days in January will probably holidays 17:14:53 roland: OK - last call deadline will be 2009-01-13 17:15:40 topic: testing 17:15:51 (primarily about test cases) 17:16:19 roland: anyone have any plans to do work on testing in the near future? 17:17:44 eric: I've demonstrably not done the work - what can we do to light a fire under our feet? 17:18:15 phil: it is possible that we could find issues in the spec by writing the tests. 17:18:22 roland: executing the test cases might find others. 17:19:06 ... also will be calling for implementations, and that the test cases can be supported by those implementations. 17:19:46 phil: In WebSphere - in 7.0 release that we just announced - it ought to have a correct implementation of the spec. 17:20:05 ... until we define all the test cases... and actually run them, we won't know for sure. 17:21:06 phil: We had an effort before to define testing strategy, but we couldn't do much, due to the differences in the runtimes 17:21:29 ... so we decided to define at a higher level the test cases that can be implemented in different ways by different vendors. 17:21:42 ... that's how we ended up with our template approach. 17:22:13 roland: What is requlred for validating the spec from a W3C spec, and what is demonstrating interoperability amongst products - two different things. 17:22:38 ... If we want to go that extra step for interoperability, we should decide that - do we want an "interoperability fest"? 17:23:26 phil: As an example of an interop scenario - we could take two implementations - configure them to use the same JMS provider, and assume that we had implementations of test cases, we could test the interop by running client on one, server on the other, and vice versa. 17:23:46 ... That's the sort of interop testing that WS-I does. 17:24:26 ... what is the minimum that each runtime vendor will want to do to demonstrate compatibility with the spec? 17:24:47 roland: Our conformance criteria state that two implementations with the same inputs will generate the same outputs. 17:25:17 peaston: Doesn't need to be a product, does it? 17:25:29 roland: no. we could build a custom piece of code, for that matter. 17:25:40 phil: If we have a commercial product, ought to use it, right? 17:25:50 roland: more implementations is better. 17:26:08 peaston: Sonic could show up with something not yet shipping. 17:26:22 roland: Could be something that never becomes a product. 17:26:36 peaston: Sounds like we should meet to have a "plug-fest" 17:26:56 roland: everyone should talk to their respective organizations to see what is feasible, and what timescale 17:27:06 phil: Lot of prep-work that would go into that 17:27:22 roland: yes - if we're getting together, a fair amount of planning required. 17:27:54 phil: Should we continue down the path we started earlier? 17:28:06 roland: we certainly need to reactive the work we've done earlier. 17:28:19 phil: Do we still believe this is the correct path to take? 17:28:42 peaston: Mock server and mock client? 17:29:23 phil: No - we backed off of that - define what a test case looks like, and vendors decide how to implement that. What's on our website is just an outline. 17:29:30 roland: might be good to do this for an appserver 17:30:00 phil: JavaEE AppServer products - someone could contribute a JEE application that implements those test-case definitions. 17:30:06 roland: of course, doesn't have to be exclusive. 17:30:41 phil: Since I'll need to do something similar to that, potentially might be able to do it in a way that I'll be able to make it public. 17:31:16 phil: certainly appreciate that there are other environments that are not JEE 17:31:45 roland: any other comments on testing? 17:31:53 topic: AOB? 17:32:30 roland: I'll ask one - do we need a call next week? Propose that we skip next week unless something comes up that we need to deal with. 17:33:02 peaston: That would have our next meeting 2 days shy of Thanksgiving. 17:33:46 phil: I feel like we need to make some progress on the testing effort. 17:34:08 ... people should come back next week to talk about what the testing effort might mean. 17:34:24 ... alternatively skip the 25th. 17:34:40 peaston: Presumably we can proceed with test cases. 17:34:47 roland: we certainly can. 17:35:22 peaston: I'm happy to do one, but we need a bunch of them. 17:35:33 roland: I'll go back through and look at the assertions. 17:36:08 action: peaston to add a test case. 17:36:09 Created ACTION-51 - Add a test case. [on Peter Easton - due 2008-11-18]. 17:37:01 phil: can send out the mechanics of how to add test cases. 17:37:36 ... it is checked into CVS. Should we have anyone defining one committing changes - or should we have one editor merging? 17:38:14 action: Yves - make sure everyone has CVS access for creating test cases. 17:38:15 Created ACTION-52 - - make sure everyone has CVS access for creating test cases. [on Yves Lafon - due 2008-11-18]. 17:39:20 roland: we will have a call next week, and decide next week whether we need a meeting the week after that. 17:39:34 -bhakti 17:39:37 -eric 17:39:39 - +1.512.918.aadd 17:39:41 -Roland 17:39:43 -Derek 17:39:44 -Peter_Easton 17:39:46 -alewis 17:39:46 WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has ended 17:39:47 Attendees were alewis, Roland, Peter_Easton, +1.708.246.aaaa, +1.650.846.aabb, Derek, eric, +1.408.956.aacc, bhakti, +1.512.918.aadd 17:40:01 rrsagent, make minutes 17:40:01 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2008/11/11-soap-jms-minutes.html Roland 17:40:27 rrsagent, make log public 17:41:02 Roland has left #soap-jms 19:14:52 Zakim has left #soap-jms