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

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

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 16:04:50 -0400
To: Phil Adams <phil_adams@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>, SOAP/JMS <public-soap-jms@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1211486690.3526.76.camel@localhost>

On Thu, 2008-05-22 at 13:38 -0500, Phil Adams wrote:
> Ok, I might be in the minority here, and that's fine if I am... but I
> disagree that we should be dictating the actual API calls that should
> be invoked in the JMS API by a conforming implementation.    If you
> want to talk about the fact that a conforming implementation should
> add string property "A" to the request message and that the values for
> "A" should be X/Y/Z/whatever, then that's fine, but I don't think it's
> correct to say that the conforming implementation MUST call the
> javax.jms.Message.setStringProperty("A",<value>) method within the JMS
> API layer to set the value.    I'm not taking this position because my
> implementation doesn't use the JMS API (in fact it does use it), but I
> know of other implementations that might want to "conform" but do not
> use the JMS API per se. 

Isn't the Working Group "responsible for producing a W3C Recommendation
for how SOAP should bind to a transport that supports the Java Message
Service (JMS) api" [1]? So, we don't have to consider implementations
that do not use the JMS API. After all, the relative interoperability of
JMS is defined by the JMS API. If we decide to enlarge that definition,
then I don't know what we're talking about anymore...

Philippe
> 
[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/08/soap-jms-charter.html
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2008 20:05:26 GMT

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