W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-soap-jms@w3.org > May 2008

RE: [SOAP-JMS] minutes 2008-05-20

From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 11:55:50 -0400
Message-ID: <7e19572c149167d9e5a34460a5901046@xerom.local>
To: Phil Adams <phil_adams@us.ibm.com>
Cc: SOAP/JMS (list) <public-soap-jms@w3.org>, Roland Merrick <roland_merrick@uk.ibm.com>


On 2008-05-22 11:44:21 -0400 Phil Adams <phil_adams@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Of course, my thinking here is restricted to the application server 
> environment, since that's what my focus is.   There might be other 
> "runtimes" 
> out there that want to play in the SOAP/JMS sandbox as well that 
> would 
> operate differently and might have different testing characteristics.

I suspect that this is what triggered my response.

We deliver JMS as a standalone messaging application; I don't know 
that we deliver it within a web application server environment (but I 
don't know the entire TIBCO software line, mind).

Doing the least necessary to verify conformance seems to me to be the 

We *are* defining at the API level.  That's the only level we *can* 
define at, interoperably.  Vendors may be supplying other APIs that 
make it easier, but ... fundamentally, we're defining which APIs are 
called in order to generate a SOAP message, and which are or should be 
called to consume it.

We can't test wire-level conformance, because JMS ain't got it.

We *can* define a serialization, using the same sets of APIs that we 
are effectively using to define the protocol, and verify that the 
output is conformant/consistent.

Do we need more for bootstrapping than the JNDI environment?

(could folks please stop copying the -request list address in 
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2008 15:57:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:24:43 UTC