W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-soap-jms@w3.org > June 2008

Re: [SOAP-JMS] content questions

From: Phil Adams <phil_adams@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:25:45 -0500
To: public-soap-jms@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFB9351C08.ECA6709F-ON86257472.00617855-86257472.00653C1F@us.ibm.com>
Hi Roland,
For your first question below, I would like to suggest that instead of 
mentioning anything about specific media types that need to be supported, 
we simply defer to the SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2 specs.   For a particular 
version of SOAP (1.1 or 1.2), the "SOAPJMS_contentType" property on the 
JMS message should behave exactly the same as the HTTP counterpart (i.e. 
the Content-Type HTTP header), IMO.    I would think that most vendor 
runtimes would use common code that processes the payload of the transport 
message (HTTP, JMS, etc.) together with the content-type value, without 
regard for which transport the message arrived on.   And for us to start 
to specify particular media types, etc. would just open the door for the 
SOAP/JMS spec to become out of sync with the SOAP/HTTP binding spec.

Phil Adams 
WebSphere Development - Web Services
IBM Austin, TX
email: phil_adams@us.ibm.com
office: (512) 838-6702  (tie-line 678-6702)
mobile: (512) 750-6599




From:
Roland Merrick <roland_merrick@uk.ibm.com>
To:
public-soap-jms@w3.org
Date:
06/24/2008 12:27 PM
Subject:
[SOAP-JMS] content questions




Greetings, during todays call we failed to get through all the "Content 
questions" [1] raised by Peter and Eric. The follwing still need some 
resolution: 
Section 2.2.3: contentType - Do we need to add statements requiring 
minimal support for various flavors of XML, or require that vendors 
support specific encodings? 
Section 2.2.3: We define a "requestIRI" property.  Do we want to change 
this to a requestURI property, but allow users to put an IRI in the 
contents? This will have a cascade effect in other places.... 

Interesting question, where do we actually allow IRIs and when are they 
converted to URIs.
Section 2.2.4: Definition of fault codes with "IRI" in the name - do we 
want to change them to use URI? 

I would certainly say YES, change to URI. I certainly hope this is the 
case as Bhakti already changed to URI as part of the "universal" 
switchover.
Section 2.7.2: If this is untestable, should we be specifying it? 

[1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Jun/att-0015/00-part 


Regards, Roland




Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU 
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2008 18:26:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:16:17 GMT