W3C

- DRAFT -

SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference

30 Nov 2010

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
padams, +1.919.663.aaaa, Derek, Mark, +1.209.474.aabb, +1.781.280.aacc, alewis, eric
Regrets
Chair
Eric
Scribe
Mark

Contents


<trackbot> Date: 30 November 2010

trackbot, start telcon

<trackbot> Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 30 November 2010

Appointment of the scribe

<scribe> Scribe: Mark

Approval of prior meeting minutes

http://www.w3.org/2010/11/16-soap-jms-minutes.html

RESOLUTION: Minutes are approved

Review the agenda

No changes to agenda

Administrative items

Eric: The workgroup charter was scheduled to expire this December
... That isn't a problem as long as the WG is seen to be making progress, however Yves has extended our charter to the middle of next year

Review action items

Eric: No progress on 146, or 202

Derek: Started looking at 222 - still in progress

Phil: 223 still pending

Peter: 225 (testcase mods arising from action 219) - now done

close action-225

<trackbot> ACTION-225 Apply Action-219 changes to test spec closed

Phil: ACTION-227 is done - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Nov/0035.html

close action-227

<trackbot> ACTION-227 Raise issue on the SOAP/JMS namespace distinction between SOAP 1.1 and 1.2 and present proposal closed

Eric: 228 is done

close action-228

<trackbot> ACTION-228 Come up with a proposal for Issue-65 closed

Phil: 229 - is done - see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Nov/0036.html

close action-229

<trackbot> ACTION-229 Come up with a proposal for Issue-65 closed

Moving to PR (via CR? & LC)

Mark: Starting to look at whether IBM's WebSphere Message Broker can be tested against CXF (an independent implementation from WebSphere App Server)

Phil: What about pending chages e.g. Issue 65?

Eric: For the purposes of moving to PR, implementations must conform to last published draft.

Specification Issues:

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/67

Phil: JAX-WS provides a value that can be used by an endpoint developer in the Binding type annotation to specify the SOAP version and the transport. Our Binding spec only defines a single namespace, and so is insufficient to denote both SOAP version(1.1 or 1.2) and transport (JMS)
... Proposal is to define 2 values - one for SOAP 1.1 and the other for SOAP 1.2

See proposal in ISSUE-67 following the text "Regarding specific changes to the binding spec to resolve this issue"...

RESOLUTION: no objections - ISSUE-67 is opened

Mark: Do we need to update namespace table etc. in spec.

Phil: No, should keep everything else the same - these are new namespace values

Eric: *Could* add these in as additional normative values in spec. but can't see any concrete use cases for that
... Suggest dropping the last paragraph in the proposal (which begins "Ideally, these values would be defined by the JAX-WS specification")
... ...and perhaps amend the previous paragraph to be more generalised - so that it doesn't just apply to JAX-WS

Phil: Perhaps we could replace the final paragraph with some text that acknowledges that there may be some other technologies that would find these values useful

Eric: That might be overkill unless we can think of concrete examples

RESOLUTION: The proposal is approved with the final paragraph removed

action mark to apply the changes for ISSUE-67

<trackbot> Created ACTION-230 - Apply the changes for ISSUE-67 [on Mark Phillips - due 2010-12-07].

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/68

Eric: Public comments from the mailing list regarding the use of the API for Setting JMS Header properties

Mark: Good spot - been in the spec for a long time

Phil: +1

RESOLUTION: The ISSUE-68 is opened

<scribe> ACTION: mark to come up with a concrete proposal to resolve issue 68 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/30-soap-jms-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-231 - Come up with a concrete proposal to resolve issue 68 [on Mark Phillips - due 2010-12-07].

Open Issues

Eric: Changed spec. to point at revision 10 of URI scheme ( http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/27 )

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/65

Eric's proposal:

<eric> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Nov/0033.html

<eric> Issues to discuss: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Nov/0032.html

Discussion: No way to find out what encodings a service provider supports.

Eric: HTTP can determine what encodings a web server Accepts but this proposal does not include an equivalent

Amy: We could simplfiy by saying that content-encoding can only be applied to single part messages

Eric: Yes - that's a slightly different issue - do we want to allow this property for multi-part messages?

Amy: In 2.2.3 we would add a bullet point that says soapjms:contentEncoding must not be used for multi-part messages

Phil: If we adopt this as a normative change it will require changes to existing implementations - at a minimum, to check for this new property, and throw the appropriate SOAP fault if encoding is not supported

<alewis> * Restriction: the property is not defined for composite messages (messages with a Content-Type of "multipart" or "message"), only for discrete messages (Content-Type "application" or "text", for this specification).

Eric: we *could* soften the requirement in the final bullet in 2.2.3 to "SHOULD" so that existing implementations don't change
... If we keep the hard requirement we would need a new test to send a bogus encoding and ensure we get a fault back

Phil: We shoud make it a MUST if we'e going to put it in at all

Peter: Agree with the discussion - still pondering SHOULD vs. MUST for the fault

Mark: If we add a new fault we will also need to add it to the schema

Eric: If anyone cares strongly about the MUST then please make a counter proposal
... to revise the proposal with Amy's addition and the fault in the proposal

<scribe> ACTION: Eric to revise the proposal with Amy's addition and the fault in the proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/30-soap-jms-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-232 - Revise the proposal with Amy's addition and the fault in the proposal [on Eric Johnson - due 2010-12-07].

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Eric to revise the proposal with Amy's addition and the fault in the proposal [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/30-soap-jms-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: mark to come up with a concrete proposal to resolve issue 68 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/11/30-soap-jms-minutes.html#action01]
 
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2010/11/30 18:04:14 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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)

Succeeded: s/propoalin/proposal in/
Succeeded: s/wnat/want/
No ScribeNick specified.  Guessing ScribeNick: mphillip
Found Scribe: Mark
Default Present: padams, +1.919.663.aaaa, Derek, Mark, +1.209.474.aabb, +1.781.280.aacc, alewis, eric
Present: padams +1.919.663.aaaa Derek Mark +1.209.474.aabb +1.781.280.aacc alewis eric
Found Date: 30 Nov 2010
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2010/11/30-soap-jms-minutes.html
People with action items: eric mark

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]