W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-soap-jms@w3.org > April 2009

RE: [SOAP-JMS] Last Call comment LC08

From: Roland Merrick <roland_merrick@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:27:03 +0100
To: "dongbo.xiao@oracle.com" <dongbo.xiao@oracle.com>
Cc: "Michael Chen" <MICHAEL.X.CHEN@oracle.com>, "public-soap-jms@w3.org" <public-soap-jms@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFE27117D0.B8EBBE0E-ON802575A0.0055A8AF-802575A0.005A5E7E@uk.ibm.com>
Greetings Dongbo, the URI Scheme for Java(tm) Message Service 1.0 [1] 
includes the following statement  -- The three recognized variants 
(<jms-variant> above) are "jndi", "queue", and "topic". -- but is does not 
require support for all recognized variants. The bindings spec does now 
make clear that only the jndi variant must be supported for a SOAP-JMS 

We have corrected the use of "topicReplyToName" and added a new fault 
"unsupportedLookupVariant" to address the additional problems you pointed 
out. The latest editor draft [2] includes all the changes made to address 
the problems you identified.

Please confirm whether the changes we have made satisfy the concerns that 
you raised. 

[1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-merrick-jms-uri-05.txt
[2] http://dev.w3.org/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms.html

Regards, Roland

"Dongbo Xiao" <dongbo.xiao@oracle.com>
Roland Merrick/UK/IBM@IBMGB
"Michael Chen" <MICHAEL.X.CHEN@oracle.com>, "public-soap-jms@w3.org" 
10/02/2009 16:53
RE: [SOAP-JMS] Last Call comment LC08

Hi Roland and the W3C SOAP/JMS working group,
Thank you very much for taking my comments into consideration.
The added clarification does serve the purpose of making it clear that the 
jndi variant is MUST supported by a conforming implementation, and other 
two variants are optional.  I am not sure then if this is consistent with 
Conformance-1002 ?Conforming implementations MUST implement all the 
requirements of [URI Scheme for JMS].?
My next question would be whether we need to specify how to interpret the 
additional query parameters that are specific to the two optional variants 
if an implementation decides to support them as well.  For example, the 
JMS URI scheme indicates that with ?topic? variant, ?topicReplyToName? 
should be used, in stead of ?replyToName?, while the binding spec 
(properties section and WSDL binding) does not discuss this at all.
A related minor issue is the need of defining the error/fault message that 
the client would get when it uses a URL that contains the ?queue? or 
?topic? variant to access an implementation that does not support those 

From: public-soap-jms-request@w3.org [
mailto:public-soap-jms-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Roland Merrick
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 7:11 AM
To: Dongbo Xiao
Cc: Michael Chen; public-soap-jms@w3.org
Subject: [SOAP-JMS] Last Call comment LC08

Greetings Dongbo, in your feedback you included the following comment 
which he have assigned the identifier: LC08 [1]. 
1. General Comments 
The JMS URI Scheme spec defines there variants: ?jndi?, ?queue?, and ?
topic?. It is not clear whether all three variants have to be supported by 
a conforming implementation of the binding spec. If ?queue and ?topic? 
variant have to be supported as well, it would make sense to discuss the 
meaning of the relevant properties (for example, destinationName and 
replyToName) in the cases where the jms-variant is ?queue? or ?topic?. 

The description of the soapjms:lookupVariant in 2.2.1, Connection to a 
destination has been updated by adding "The jms-variant: jndi MUST be 
supported." The latest version of the editor draft includes the change 

Please confirm whether the change we have made satisfies the concern that 
you raised. 
[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/wiki/2009-01_LC_Comments#LC08 

Regards, Roland

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU 

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Received on Wednesday, 22 April 2009 16:28:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:17:20 UTC