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

Action-61: consistency of JNDI-related properties

From: Phil Adams <phil_adams@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:28:02 -0600
To: public-soap-jms@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF67177662.6FF6F762-ON8625754B.00692FA7-8625754B.006AED74@us.ibm.com>
In section 2.2.1 of the SOAP/JMS binding spec, we use "
javax.naming.Context.INITIAL_CONTEXT_FACTORY" to refer to a property in 
the definition of the soapjms:jndiInitialContextFactory parameter, yet we 
use "java.naming.provider.url" to refer to a property in the definition of 
the soapjms:jndiURL parameter.

>From a pure specification standpoint, I can see how we would want to use 
the actual property names as specified in the JNDI specification.   Those 
names would be "java.naming.factory.initial" and 
"java.naming.provider.url".     However, from a programmer's perspective, 
I can also see how we would want to specify the constants since we all 
know it is good practice to use constants for things like this.     With 
this in mind, I'll propose two separate wordings and we can discuss on the 
next call or via email and vote:

Proposal #1:
a) soapjms:jndiInitialContextFactory:         This is mapped to the 
"java.naming.factory.initial" property (defined by constant 
javax.naming.Context.INITIAL_CONTEXT_FACTORY) to be set in the HashMap 
passed to an InitialContext constructor. 

b) soapjms:jndiURL:      Specifies the JNDI provider URL, which is mapped 
to the java.naming.provider.url property (defined by constant 
javax.naming.Context.PROVIDER_URL) to be set in the HashMap passed to an 
InitialContextconstructor. 


Proposal #2:
a) soapjms:jndiInitialContextFactory:         This is mapped to the 
"java.naming.factory.initial" property to be set in the HashMap passed to 
an InitialContext constructor. 

b) soapjms:jndiURL:      Specifies the JNDI provider URL, which is mapped 
to the java.naming.provider.url property  to be set in the HashMap passed 
to an InitialContextconstructor. 


So, proposal #1 would be to essentially specify both with "(defined by 
constant X)" included in the sentence, and proposal #2 would be to only 
specify the actual property names.

I think I would lean toward proposal #1 just to be painfully clear to the 
reader, but I'm fine with either way...


One other minor editorial change:  In section 2.2.2.1, the programming 
example should be changed such that the first "import" statements reads 
"import javax.naming.Context" (i.e. it should be javax, not java).

Regards,
Phil 
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Phil Adams
phil_adams@us.ibm.com
WebSphere Application Server
Office: (512) 286-5041 (t/l 363)
Web Services Development
Mobile: (512) 750-6599
IBM - Austin, TX
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2009 19:28:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:16:20 GMT