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

Re: [Uri-review] New version of JMS URI posted.

From: Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:03:46 -0700
Message-ID: <490B80C2.9010304@tibco.com>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
CC: uri-review@ietf.org, "SOAP/JMS (list)" <public-soap-jms@w3.org>

Hi Mark,

Mark Baker wrote:
> Eric - I'm unable to identify any portion of this new draft that
> addresses any of the previous concerns I've raised.
> 
> Unfortunately it appears that the uri-review archives are broken, as
> this message of yours is the only one present, so I can't easily point
> you at them.  But from my email archives, this was the discussion we
> had between Feb 15 and Mar 3 of this year concerning the meaning of
> "operations" and of what a jms URI actually identifies.

I have saved all that mail from that time period as well, and I have 
your questions.  Seeing as you don't specifically call out the questions 
you have that might remain, that makes it a little difficult for me to 
intuit exactly which issues we have that might be outstanding.  If you 
could restate precisely your concerns, that would be most helpful.

In the last email on the thread, I see this from you:

MB >>>>>>
When I looked at the JMS spec, what I found was these;

http://java.sun.com/j2ee/sdk_1.3/techdocs/api/javax/jms/ConnectionFactory.html
http://java.sun.com/j2ee/sdk_1.3/techdocs/api/javax/jms/Destination.html

Is that what you meant?

<<<<<< MB

Seeing as the first sentence of the introduction to the draft proposal 
now reads:
"   The "jms" URI scheme is used to designate a javax.jms.Destination
    object and an associated javax.jms.ConnectionFactory object, and
    optionally provide additional information concerning the way that the
    Destination object is to be used."

It is not obvious to me how we could possibly be clearer.  It seems that 
we've unambiguously identified precisely that which you indicate.

So far as I could tell from reviewing the email thread, the remaining 
issues that you had were specifically answered by changes we proposed 
back then, were confusion about terminology, or were concerns that you 
seemed to have dropped.

Any clarifications about specifically what your remaining concerns might 
be is most welcome.

-Eric.

> 
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com> wrote:
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-merrick-jms-uri-04.txt
>>
>> Changes to this draft are discussed here:
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Sep/0046.html
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Oct/0018.html
>>
>> Please advise with any feedback you might have.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> -Eric.
Received on Friday, 31 October 2008 22:04:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:16:19 GMT