RE: ACTION-64 - Clarify spec about topic replyToName

Roland,

 

I have reworded the definitions based on feedback from the group.  Here
are my suggestions:

 

1) Add the following comments to the soapjms:replyToName definition to
section 2.2.2:

 

*	If the variant is "queue" or "topic", the replyToName parameter
always refers to a name of a JMS queue.

 

2) Add a new definition:

 

[Definition: soapjms:topicReplyToName] (xsd:string) 

 

*	Specifies the name of the topic destination to which a response
message should be sent.
*	If the variant is "jndi", topicReplyToName MUST be ignored.
*	If the replyToName is specified in the URI, WSDL, or
environment, topicReplyToName MUST be ignored.
*	optional in URI, optional in WSDL, optional in environment
*	If specified and if relevant, this is used to derive the value
to be used in the JMS header JMSReplyTo.

 

3) Add new assertion

 

(topicReplyToName)If specified and if relevant, this is used to derive
the value to be used in the JMS header JMSReplyTo.

 

________________________________

From: Roland Merrick [mailto:roland_merrick@uk.ibm.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 8:35 AM
To: Rokicki, Derek
Cc: public-soap-jms@w3.org
Subject: RE: ACTION-64 - Clarify spec about topic replyToName

 


Greetings Peter, looks like a good starting position. Comments inline .
. . 

Regards, Roland


public-soap-jms-request@w3.org wrote on 23/02/2009 23:55:44:

> [image removed] 
> 
> RE: ACTION-64 - Clarify spec about topic replyToName 
> 
> Rokicki, Derek 
> 
> to: 
> 
> Rokicki, Derek, public-soap-jms 
> 
> 23/02/2009 23:58 
> 
> Sent by: 
> 
> public-soap-jms-request@w3.org 
> 
> Group, 
> As I mentioned in our February 9th meeting, it seems that we 
> overlooked the idea of a topicReplyToName in the SOAP over JMS 1.0 
> specification. 
> According to section 4.3.1. of the URI Scheme, if a JMS topic is 
> required as a response destination, then a JMS URI can employ the 
> "topicReplyToName" parameter.  This parameter is not mentioned in 
> the SOAP over JMS 1.0 specification at all.  For consistency sake I 
> suggest we modify section 2.2.2 of the SOAP over JMS 1.0 
> specification.  Here is one possible set of changes: 
> Add the following comments to the soapjms:ReplyToName definition: 
> *       If the variant is "queue" or "topic", the replyToName 
> parameter always refers to a name of a JMS queue. 
> *       Both the "replyToName" and "topicReplyToName" parameters 
> MUST not be specified at the same time. 
> Add a new definition: 
> [Definition: soapjms:topicReplyToName] (xsd:string) 
> *       Specifies the name of the topic destination to which a 
> response message should be sent. 
> *       If the variant is "jndi", then this value is ignored. 
> Question, should we ignore the value or should we treat it like we 
> do the replyToName? 

topicReplyToName is not appropriate with "jndi" variant so I propose
that it should simply be ignored. 

> *       Both the "replyToName" and "topicReplyToName" parameters 
> MUST not be specified at the same time. 
> Question, what if they are?  Do we ignore one or does this cause a
fault? 

Suggest that MUST NOT becomes SHOULD NOT and define which will be used
in a set of enumerated circumstances. 

> Question, what if replyToName is in one source and topicReplyToName 
> is in another? 

one of the enumerated circumstances. 

> *       optional in URI, optional in WSDL, optional in environment 
> *       if specified, this is used to derive the value to be used in
> the JMS header JMSReplyTo 
> If there is time, I would like to discuss this further in tomorrow's
meeting. 
> Thanks, 
> Derek



________________________________

 

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