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

RE: ACTION-68

From: Rokicki, Derek <Derek.Rokicki@softwareag.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 11:24:40 -0500
Message-ID: <173583B35C32FD48B3114FB1122C3FEF02C688B1@resmsg04.AME.ad.sag>
To: "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: <public-soap-jms@w3.org>
I am fine with these suggestions.


The SOAP over Java Message Service 1.0 specification requires
conformance with the following Message Exchange Patterns (MEP):
Request-Response MEP and One-way MEP. Other MEPs, such as Robust In-Only
and In-Optional-Out, are considered to be non-normative and are not
documented in this specification.

Individual vendors might offer solutions that implement non-normative
MEPs. Any such solutions are considered proprietary and may not be
interoperable with other vendors.

If one or more vendors wish to introduce new MEPs to the SOAP over Java
Message Service 1.0 specification, an extension to the specification
should be developed.  




-----Original Message-----
From: public-soap-jms-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-soap-jms-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Amelia A Lewis
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 10:15 AM
To: Rokicki, Derek
Cc: public-soap-jms@w3.org
Subject: Re: ACTION-68

One modification, if you don't mind:

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 11:01:23 -0500, Rokicki, Derek wrote:
> Support for Non-Normative Message Exchange Patterns
> 
> The SOAP over Java Message Service 1.0 specification requires
> conformance with the following Message Exchange Patterns (MEP):
> Request-Response MEP and One-way MEP. Other MEPs, such as Robust
In-Only
> and In-Optional-Out, are considered to be non-normative and are not
> documented in this specification.
> 
> Individual vendors might offer solutions that implement non-normative
> MEPs. Any such solutions are considered proprietary and would not be
> interoperable with other vendors.

"would not be" is, in my opinion, too strong.  If IBM and TIBCO and 
Software AG all agreed to implement a particular optional MEP 
interoperably, it would be interoperable.  "may not be" seems more 
accurate, to me.

> If one or more vendors wish to introduce new MEPs to the SOAP over
Java
> Message Service 1.0 specification, an extension to the specification
> must be developed.

And here I'd recommend that "must" become "should".

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Tuesday, 1 December 2009 16:25:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:16:22 GMT