16:54:04 RRSAgent has joined #soap-jms 16:54:04 logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-soap-jms-irc 16:54:06 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:54:06 Zakim has joined #soap-jms 16:54:08 Zakim, this will be SJMS 16:54:08 ok, trackbot; I see WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM scheduled to start in 6 minutes 16:54:09 Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference 16:54:09 Date: 27 January 2009 16:54:24 Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Jan/0029.html 16:54:33 Chair: Roland 16:55:59 WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has now started 16:56:06 +Roland 16:57:30 peaston has joined #soap-jms 16:59:55 Derek has joined #soap-jms 17:00:29 eric has joined #soap-jms 17:00:37 +Derek 17:00:40 -Roland 17:00:41 +Roland 17:01:47 +eric 17:03:14 + +1.617.519.aaaa 17:04:03 Phil has joined #soap-jms 17:04:49 +Phil 17:05:16 +mphillip 17:05:54 scribe: eric 17:06:02 topic: actions 17:06:27 mphillip has joined #soap-jms 17:06:43 Eric has made no progress on action #32. 17:07:07 +Yves 17:07:07 derek has made progress on action #53. 17:07:18 need to update the official test suite page. 17:07:45 derek: who do I talk to post the updates? 17:07:56 phil: just email the changes to me.... 17:08:02 derek: all in a word document... 17:08:13 phil: send me the XML snippets, and he can merge them. 17:08:42 close action 55 17:09:27 close action-55 17:09:27 ACTION-55 Look at the relevant specifications e.g. SOAP with Attachments to assess whether SOAP/JMS binding spec. needs the assertions regarding content type closed 17:10:50 peter: several emails exchanged with Jacques Talbot... he seems to want more content. 17:11:48 roland: do we have another question to complement the one that Bhakti had. 17:12:19 peter: Don't think there was specifically another question to answer. 17:13:54 JMS has features that HTTP doesn't have, so that reduces the need for *some* features of WS-Addressing. 17:14:02 Roland: How about just posting to the wiki. 17:14:07 FAQ: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/wiki/2008-09_FAQ 17:14:35 peter: will put it in the appropriate medium. 17:15:56 roland: I believe Derek completed action 57. 17:16:16 close action-57 17:16:16 ACTION-57 Raise spec question independently after call closed 17:17:00 topic: uri spec 17:17:05 roland: has anything moved here? 17:17:08 eric: no 17:17:40 topic: last call comments 17:17:55 http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/wiki/2009-01_LC_Comments 17:18:53 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Jan/0024.html 17:18:57 Roland: suggested change for LC-02 17:19:03 ... (see email link) 17:19:34 roland: I think we talked about this a long time ago, but never made it explicit. 17:19:52 Mark: Where we've got code, we've made it 1.1... 17:20:12 Roland: anyone unhappy with making JMS requirement of 1.1. 17:20:18 ... 17:20:53 action: roland to respond to Yong-Ping 17:20:53 Created ACTION-58 - Respond to Yong-Ping [on Roland Merrick - due 2009-02-03]. 17:21:21 alewis has joined #soap-jms 17:21:59 +alewis 17:22:03 Derek: Are we saying that it only works on JMS 1.1, or that 1.0.1 could be supported, but is not required. 17:22:21 s/Derek/Phil/g :) 17:22:28 (DRAT!) 17:22:34 (sorry) 17:23:17 Phil: are we really saying that vendor can assume 1.1? 17:24:19 eric: before W3C, we were only interested in JMS 1.1. 17:25:13 phil: suppose vendor implementation doesn't use generic APIs from JMS 1.1, doesn't that mean that it is supporting 1.0.1? 17:25:39 Phil: withdrawing comment. 17:25:57 roland: 1.1 is the conformance requirement - agreement? 17:26:48 Phil: when we're saying this is a conformance requirement, are we making it easier on the vendor by saying only version 1.1 of API? 17:27:43 mphillip: A compliant implementation could use the old APIs or the new APIs. 17:28:12 Roland: Why have any conformance - if we say it is 1.1, then they don't have to worry about earlier versions. 17:28:31 Phil: Can vendors assume JMS 1.1? 17:30:51 eric: A conforming implementation must work with JMS 1.1. 17:32:07 eric: Even if JMS 1.2 came out, I wouldn't care, unless any given JMS 1.2 implementation was also fully conformant with JMS 1.1 17:32:19 roland: all happy? 17:32:48 Phil: which one was that again? 17:32:52 Roland: LC-02 17:33:38 roland: next comment to address LC-04 17:34:51 eric: which item is this? 17:35:04 roland: **Comment3 from email (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Jan/0008.html) 17:35:21 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Jan/0025.html 17:35:35 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Jan/0027.html 17:38:10 Roland: Suspect that part of the confusion comes from this in the email "That is, the JNDI way is the default/mandatory mechanism required by JMS spec" 17:38:37 roland: not sure that we say that JNDI is supported 17:38:46 eric: I think URI spec says that JNDI is required. 17:38:57 Phil: we have to have at least one way. 17:39:06 ... otherwise we don't have interoperability. 17:41:00 eric: The URI spec is open ended on resolving destinations, but the SOAP/JMS binding specification doesn't talk about any non-JNDI elements in the WSDL. 17:41:20 Roland: I think it is worth stating that supporting the JNDI lookup is required. 17:42:04 eric: Anyone disagree with "a conforming implementation MUST support JNDI destination lookup." ? 17:42:26 mphillip: I don't see a problem with that, but is there a problem if we don't say it. 17:42:48 alewis: Don't we require conformance to the URI spec? 17:43:03 Roland: I don't see any place in the URI spec where we require it? 17:43:14 alewis: We probably should say it there. 17:44:07 mphillip: If JNDI falls out of favor - then we wouldn't want the legacy burden. 17:44:36 alewis: We make reference to the JMS specification, so perhaps it is redundant? If JMS dropped it, then we could drop it. 17:44:56 Roland: Where do we require it? Leave it as it is in the URI spec, but in the binding spec, be more specific. 17:45:31 mphillip: agree 17:46:01 eric: Are we back to my proposal for that the binding spec should say "a conforming...". 17:46:03 Roland: yes. 17:46:42 peaston: Looking for "magic bullet", but JMS spec seems to be wishy-washy. 17:47:10 Derek: I'm fine with it. 17:47:15 peaston: I'm happy with it. 17:48:00 Roland: Sounds like we have consensus that JNDI lookup is a conformance requirement of the binding spec. 17:48:14 ... doesn't quite answer the question raised in the last call comment. 17:49:17 "destinationName" doesn't show up as a string anywhere, so it is just a label for a property. JNDI is the required conformance minimum. 17:49:57 action: Roland to send email about LC-04 based on minutes from conf. call of Jan-27 17:49:57 Created ACTION-59 - Send email about LC-04 based on minutes from conf. call of Jan-27 [on Roland Merrick - due 2009-02-03]. 17:51:08 Roland: moving on to discuss LC-03 17:51:26 peaston: question is out of order. 17:51:35 Roland: Yes - you are required to specify an variant. 17:51:48 Phil: Doesn't this go in the URI spec? 17:52:10 Roland: This is in the URI spec. 17:52:27 eric: You must specify one - it could be one letter long, but it is part of the syntax. 17:52:55 action: Roland to respond with email saying that there is no fault. 17:52:55 Created ACTION-60 - Respond with email saying that there is no fault. [on Roland Merrick - due 2009-02-03]. 17:53:07 Derek: No change to the binding spec, right? 17:54:20 Roland: now discussing LC-05 17:55:15 peaston: My opinion is that we have it right. 17:56:10 Phil: as long as we're consistent in the use of the constants or the true values, we're all right - we should probably use the constants. 17:57:04 eric: do we need an action item for someone to go through and fix up the spec for consistency? 17:57:15 peaston: I think we have it right. We should use the values. 17:58:17 Phil: I see an inconsistency. In 2.2.1, we refer to both constant and value. Suggestion - look at the JNDI spec, and use the same approach - whether it is constant name or constant value. 17:58:36 action: phil to come up with a proposal to make sure we're consistent. 17:58:37 Created ACTION-61 - Come up with a proposal to make sure we're consistent. [on Phil Adams - due 2009-02-03]. 17:59:36 -eric 17:59:39 -Derek 17:59:40 -mphillip 17:59:40 -Phil 17:59:41 - +1.617.519.aaaa 17:59:41 -alewis 17:59:42 -Yves 17:59:48 rrsagent, make minutes 17:59:48 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-soap-jms-minutes.html Roland 17:59:52 eric has left #soap-jms 18:00:29 rrsagent, make minutes 18:00:29 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-soap-jms-minutes.html Roland 18:00:36 -Roland 18:00:38 WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has ended 18:00:39 Attendees were Roland, Derek, eric, +1.617.519.aaaa, Phil, mphillip, Yves, alewis 18:00:47 rrsagent, make minutes 18:00:47 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2009/01/27-soap-jms-minutes.html Roland 18:01:32 Zakim, aaaa is peaston 18:01:37 sorry, Roland, I do not recognize a party named 'aaaa' 18:02:06 Roland has left #soap-jms