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

RE: [SOAP-JMS] Last Call comment LC08

From: Dongbo Xiao <dongbo.xiao@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:53:50 +0000
To: "Roland Merrick" <roland_merrick@uk.ibm.com>
CC: "Michael Chen" <MICHAEL.X.CHEN@oracle.com>, "public-soap-jms@w3.org" <public-soap-jms@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20090210115203828.00000002816@XIAOD02>
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 <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#Conformance-1002#Conformance-1002>  "Conforming implementations MUST implement all the requirements of [URI Scheme for JMS <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#jmsuri#jmsuri> ]."


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 variants.






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 [2]. 

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 <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/wiki/2009-01_LC_Comments#LC04>  
[2] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#binding-connection <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#binding-connection>  

Regards, Roland



Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU 
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2009 19:45:20 UTC

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