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

RE: [SOAP-JMS] minutes 2008-05-20

From: Peter Easton <peaston@progress.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 12:25:10 -0400
Message-ID: <3712271BEF30D74CBEA9E827CD9ABDBD017E06BF@MAIL03.bedford.progress.com>
To: "Phil Adams" <phil_adams@us.ibm.com>, "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: "SOAP/JMS (list)" <public-soap-jms@w3.org>
Mmm. I added some ednotes on this. I think we need might need to tweak
the way our spec talks about JMS calls.
 
Peter
 
________________________________

From: public-soap-jms-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-soap-jms-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Phil Adams
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 12:10 PM
To: Amelia A Lewis
Cc: SOAP/JMS (list)
Subject: RE: [SOAP-JMS] minutes 2008-05-20



Well, does the SOAP/JMS spec really dictate which JMS APIs must be
called by a conforming runtime?    It specifies, as an example,  the set
of properties that must be set on the JMS message and the associated
behavior, etc. but it doesn't say which APIs must be called by the
conforming implementation to achieve that, nor should it in my opinion.
The reason being that some implementations might not actually use the
official JMS API to construct these messages.      The messages
themselves are the interoperability point and not the actual APIs that
were called to produce and consume them, right? 

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




Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com> 
Sent by: public-soap-jms-request@w3.org 

05/22/2008 10:55 AM 

To
Phil Adams/Austin/IBM@IBMUS 
cc
SOAP/JMS (list) <public-soap-jms@w3.org>, Roland Merrick
<roland_merrick@uk.ibm.com> 
Subject
RE: [SOAP-JMS] minutes 2008-05-20

	





Heyo,

On 2008-05-22 11:44:21 -0400 Phil Adams <phil_adams@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Of course, my thinking here is restricted to the application server 
> environment, since that's what my focus is.   There might be other 
> "runtimes" 
> out there that want to play in the SOAP/JMS sandbox as well that 
> would 
> operate differently and might have different testing characteristics.

I suspect that this is what triggered my response.

We deliver JMS as a standalone messaging application; I don't know 
that we deliver it within a web application server environment (but I 
don't know the entire TIBCO software line, mind).

Doing the least necessary to verify conformance seems to me to be the 
key.

We *are* defining at the API level.  That's the only level we *can* 
define at, interoperably.  Vendors may be supplying other APIs that 
make it easier, but ... fundamentally, we're defining which APIs are 
called in order to generate a SOAP message, and which are or should be 
called to consume it.

We can't test wire-level conformance, because JMS ain't got it.

We *can* define a serialization, using the same sets of APIs that we 
are effectively using to define the protocol, and verify that the 
output is conformant/consistent.

Do we need more for bootstrapping than the JNDI environment?

Amy!
(could folks please stop copying the -request list address in 
reply-alls?)
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2008 16:26:13 GMT

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