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

RE: [SOAP-JMS] Last Call comment LC08

From: Roland Merrick <roland_merrick@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:56:18 +0000
To: Dongbo Xiao <dongbo.xiao@oracle.com>
Cc: "Michael Chen" <MICHAEL.X.CHEN@oracle.com>, "public-soap-jms@w3.org" <public-soap-jms@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF72364B06.A65E0A34-ON80257584.0040D7E2-80257584.004194AB@uk.ibm.com>
Greetings Dongbo, on your question about Conformance-1002 I don't think 
that there is a consistency problem since the URI spec only states that 
"The three recognized variants (<jms-variant> above) are "jndi", "queue", 
and "topic." It doesn't say that support for any of them is required only 
that they have defined semantics. The added clarification that you 
reasonably asked for in the binding spec makes explicit what needs to be 
supported. 

Do you feel that we must make this clearer in Conformance-1002?

Regards, Roland




From:
"Dongbo Xiao" <dongbo.xiao@oracle.com>
To:
Roland Merrick/UK/IBM@IBMGB
Cc:
"Michael Chen" <MICHAEL.X.CHEN@oracle.com>, "public-soap-jms@w3.org" 
<public-soap-jms@w3.org>
Date:
10/02/2009 16:53
Subject:
RE: [SOAP-JMS] Last Call comment LC08



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 ?Conforming implementations MUST implement all the 
requirements of [URI Scheme for JMS].?
 
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.
 
Regards,
Dongbo
 

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 
[2] 
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 












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 Wednesday, 25 March 2009 11:58:32 GMT

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