RE: W3C SOAP over JMS spec review comments

 
Dear Soap Over JMS WG,
  Please find the attached comments from Zhang Jin Zhai and Tang Yongping.
  We are working in TM Forum Interface Program (TIP) and happy to see that this specification could be helpful to TIP:
     - SOAP/JMS would be needed for integration which has more requirement on WS security, interoperability, etc.
     - Standardization of SOAP/JMS would benefit TIP in implementation
  We represent only on our own behalves as contributors to TIP program. However, we represent the point of view from neither HP nor TM Forum Interface Program.
  Resent the message due to Word attachment issue.
 

**comment1	
Point: chapter 1.6	
Comment: I see that JMS specification 1.1 in reference list. Not sure if it makes sense to mention JMS 1.1 explicitly, anyway, there are some notable difference between JMS 1.0. 2 and JMS 1.1

**Comment2
Point:  chapter 2.2.1 [Definition: soapjms:lookupVariant ](xsd:string)	
Comment: "Does there any default value or predefined value for this property? From definition of destinationName, “jndi” seems such a value. 
I got an impression one must look up  JMS destination and connection factory JNDI (specified in JMS spec?)


**Comment3
Point:	chapter 2.2.1 definition of destinationName and jndiConnectionFactoryName
Comment:	jndiConnectionFactoryName,destinationName,why first item with prefix “jndi”, but second one without it?

**Comment4
Point:	chapter 2.2.1 [Definition: soapjms:jndiURL ] (xsd:anyURI) ".. Which is mapped to the java.naming.provider.url	
Comment: It is javax.naming.Context.PROVIDER_URL. 
in definition of jndiInitialContextFactory, we use javax.naming.Context.INITIAL_CONTEXT_FACTORY  refer to java.naming.factory.initial. Now we better keep the style, that is, use javax.naming.Context.PROVIDER_URL to refer to java.naming.provider.url
"

**comment5	
Point: chapter 2.2.1 [Definition: soapjms:jndiContextParameter] '.. Specifies an additional property, …'	
Comment: All other properties defined in javax.naming.Context are in this category, right?

Best Regards,
Jin Zhai and Yongping

>> From: Roland Merrick/UK/IBM
>> To: "Zhang, Jin-Zhai (TSG-GDCC-SH)" <jinzhai.zhang@hp.com 
>> <jinzhai.zhang@hp.com> >
>> Cc: "Flauw, Marc" <Marc.Flauw@hp.com <Marc.Flauw@hp.com> >, 
>> "tip-framework@lists.tmforum.org <tip-framework@lists.tmforum.org> "
>> <tip-framework@lists.tmforum.org <tip-framework@lists.tmforum.org> >, 
>> "tip-tech-coord@lists.tmforum.org <tip-tech-coord@lists.tmforum.org> "
>> <tip-tech-coord@lists.tmforum.org <tip-tech-coord@lists.tmforum.org>
>>> , "Tang, Yong-Ping (TSG-GDCC-SH)" <yong-ping.tang@hp.com
>> <yong-ping.tang@hp.com> >
>> Date: 02/12/2008 14:47
>> Subject: Re: FW: W3C SOAP over JMS spec
>>
>>
>>
>> Greetings, since you have an interest in the standardisation of 
>> SOAP-JMS Binding I thought I would inform you that we recently 
>> announced the Last Call publication of:
>>
>>        SOAP over Java Message Service 1.0
>>         http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-soapjms-20081121/

>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-soapjms-20081121/>
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-soapjms-20081121/

>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-soapjms-20081121/> >
>>
>>
>> The Last Call review period ends on 13 January 2009 and we would 
>> appreciate any feedback that you may have. Comments should be sent to 
>> public-soap-jms@w3.org <public-soap-jms@w3.org> (archives are public).
>>
>> Perhaps you will find that the draft meets your needs and you have no 
>> comments, if so feedback to this effect is equally important.
>>
>> [1]
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Nov/0032.html

>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Nov/0032.htm

>> l
>>>
>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Nov/0032.htm

>> l
>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Nov/0032.htm

>> l
>>>>
>>
>> Regards, Roland
>> FBCS, CITP
>>
>>
>>
>> From: "Zhang, Jin-Zhai (TSG-GDCC-SH)" <jinzhai.zhang@hp.com 
>> <jinzhai.zhang@hp.com> >
>> To: "tip-framework@lists.tmforum.org <tip-framework@lists.tmforum.org> "
>> <tip-framework@lists.tmforum.org <tip-framework@lists.tmforum.org> >, 
>> "tip-tech-coord@lists.tmforum.org <tip-tech-coord@lists.tmforum.org> "
>> <tip-tech-coord@lists.tmforum.org <tip-tech-coord@lists.tmforum.org>
>>> , "Flauw, Marc" <Marc.Flauw@hp.com <Marc.Flauw@hp.com> >, "Tang,
>> Yong-Ping (TSG-GDCC-SH)" <yong-ping.tang@hp.com 
>> <yong-ping.tang@hp.com> >
>> Cc: Roland Merrick/UK/IBM@IBMGB
>> Date: 01/07/2008 03:17
>> Subject: FW: W3C SOAP over JMS spec
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>     Mr Roland Merrick is one of the editor of the W3C SOAP/JMS spec 
>> (http://www.w3.org/Submission/SOAPJMS/

>> <http://www.w3.org/Submission/SOAPJMS/>
>> <http://www.w3.org/Submission/SOAPJMS/

>> <http://www.w3.org/Submission/SOAPJMS/>
>>> ) and the initial chair of the W3C SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group
>> <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ > >
>> ( <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/08/soap-jms-charter.html

>> <http://www.w3.org/2007/08/soap-jms-charter.html>
>> <http://www.w3.org/2007/08/soap-jms-charter.html

>> <http://www.w3.org/2007/08/soap-jms-charter.html> > ). He had kindly 
>> answered some questions about SOAP/JMS spec. You can find the 
>> question and answer in following email.
>>
>> best regards,
>> Jinzhai
>>
>> ZHANG Jinzhai, Justin (张晋寨)
>> Hewlett-Packard
>> +86 21 3889 7219
>> la structure cachée dans les choses mathématiques
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Roland Merrick [mailto:roland_merrick@uk.ibm.com 
>> <mailto:roland_merrick@uk.ibm.com> <mailto:roland_merrick@uk.ibm.com 
>> <mailto:roland_merrick@uk.ibm.com> > ]
>> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 10:20 PM
>> To: Zhang, Jin-Zhai (TSG-GDCC-SH)
>> Cc: Flauw, Marc; Tang, Yong-Ping (TSG-GDCC-SH)
>> Subject: Re: W3C SOAP over JMS spec
>>
>>
>> Greetings, I will try and answer as many of your questions as I can.
>>
>> You are correct that work on this subject is relatively new in W3C 
>> but it has taken as it's start point the submission [1] that was made 
>> to W3C in 2007. The schedule of deliverables you include is, I hope, 
>> conservative given the work that has already been undertaken but the 
>> requirements of the W3C Process are such that it cannot happen much sooner.
>>
>> Your observation that most of the participating vendors already some 
>> form of SOAP-JMS Binding in their products is an accurate one but the 
>> reason that we are undertaking this standardisation effort is that 
>> they are all different and there is no interoperability. When will 
>> vendors add support to their products?
>> I am afraid that I cannot answer that question, as far as I am aware 
>> none of the vendors have made any public statements about support in 
>> their products.
>>
>> You have missed Progress and Sun from your list of participants in 
>> the W3C WG, Sun did not participate in the earlier activity.
>>
>> The key milestones are a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) followed 
>> by a Last Call Working Draft (LCWD) which is significant because the 
>> spec is considered functionally complete at this point and is the 
>> last opportunity for comment on it function. The Candidate 
>> Recommendation is also very significant because all comments received 
>> at Last Call must be resolved and implementations of the spec are 
>> required to validate the specification acccording to the conformance 
>> criteria. These implementations do NOT have to be products.
>>
>> As to you technical question, you should be able to supplement the 
>> basic SOAP with additional WS-* capabilities. Our objective is to 
>> make it as easy as possible to switch an application from SOAP-HTTP 
>> to SOAP-JMS. The easiest possible solution is that the application 
>> has to do nothing.
>>
>> In your introduction you said "We are a team in Telemanagement 
>> Forum", I have had some discussions with some people working on MTOSI 
>> in the past, is this a related activity?
>>
>> I hope this helps, if you have any more questions, or need clearer 
>> answers let me know.
>>
>> One final comment, Dongbo Xiao is a lady!
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2007/SUBM-SOAPJMS-20071026/

>> <http://www.w3.org/Submission/2007/SUBM-SOAPJMS-20071026/>
>> <http://www.w3.org/Submission/2007/SUBM-SOAPJMS-20071026/

>> <http://www.w3.org/Submission/2007/SUBM-SOAPJMS-20071026/> >
>>
>> Regards, Roland
>> FBCS, CITP
>> IBM Software Group, Strategy, Software Standards
>> Tel/Fax: +44 (0)1926-465440
>> Mobile: +44 (0)77 2520-0620
>>
>> "Zhang, Jin-Zhai (TSG-GDCC-SH)" <jinzhai.zhang@hp.com 
>> <jinzhai.zhang@hp.com> >
>> 26/06/2008 14:08
>> To
>> Roland Merrick/UK/IBM@IBMGB
>> cc
>> "Flauw, Marc" <Marc.Flauw@hp.com <Marc.Flauw@hp.com> >, "Tang, 
>> Yong-Ping (TSG-GDCC-SH)" <yong-ping.tang@hp.com 
>> <yong-ping.tang@hp.com> > Subject W3C SOAP over JMS spec
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Mr Roland Merrick,
>>     We are a team in Telemanagement Forum. We would like to have your 
>> kind help on W3C SOAP/JMS specification.
>>
>>     Now we are going to define a family of specifications and are 
>> discussing if taking SOAP/JMS as  one of  bindings in these 
>> specifications. We have realized that the W3C SOAP/JMS specification 
>> is relatively recent. Whilst there are many SOAP/JMS supports in 
>> middlewares such as weblogic, websphere, it seems that they are not 
>> declared to be compliant with the W3C SOAP/JMS specification.
>>     Would you please share with us how many spec implementations are 
>> actually available or are scheduled in industry?
>>
>>    We have found following milestones table in "Charter of the 
>> SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group", and Mr Dongbo Xiao  had kindly 
>> explained the acronyms in the table. The CR (call for implementation) 
>> is the 3rd step, current step is possibly EPWD. If this means that 
>> W3C-certificated implementations development will  kick-off  at least 
>> after Dec 2008?  Does IBM, BEA, Tibco,
>> WSO2 (the member company of the SOAP/JMS specification) have any plan 
>> for implementation?
>>
>>    Here we also have a technical question. If we embody the 
>> specification in WSDL with SOAP/JMS binding, one concern is if it is 
>> possible for spec implementor to enhance the WSDL with WS-* such as 
>> WS-security, WS-transaction.
>> We know we can do this in SOAP/HTTP binding, do we can also do this 
>> in WSDL SOAP/JMS binding?
>>
>>  Sorry for many questions in the first mail for you. We are looking 
>> for your kind help.
>>
>> Thanks and Best Regards,
>>
>> Jinzhai
>>
>>
>> ZHANG Jinzhai, Justin (张晋寨)
>> Hewlett-Packard
>> +86 21 3889 7219
>> la structure cachée dans les choses mathématiques
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> You are currently subscribed to tip-framework as: sfratini@telcordia.com.
>         To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
> leave-tip-framework-27202C@lists.tmforum.org

Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 06:04:08 UTC