Re: Agenda for 2008-10-07

I thought it might help to try to make it clear as to what the "current" 
TextMessage proposal is.    In the agenda below, Roland pointed to an 
email of mine to the mailing list and since I sent that email out, we've 
discussed various things related to TextMessage support.    So... this is 
my understanding relative to what is currently on the table. 

Overview:
- We will not be introducing any changes to the URI spec.
- The binding spec will be updated to state that the message sending node 
MUST send either a BytesMessage or a TextMessage.    The determination of 
whether the message sending node uses a TextMessage or BytesMessage would 
be left to the vendor implementation.  I think we decided to introduce a 
WSDL property ("messageType") for both WSDL 1.1 and 2.0 which can be used 
in a manner similar to other WSDL properties.
- The binding spec will be updated to state that the message receiving 
node MUST support both BytesMessage and TextMessage and MUST respond with 
the same type of message that was received for the request (respond in 
kind). 

Details:
1) In section 2.4 (The JMS Message Body), we should re-word the first 
sentence as follows:
The contents of the JMS Message body MUST be the SOAP payload as a JMS 
BytesMessage or TextMessage.   The means for determining whether a 
BytesMessage or TextMessage is used is vendor-specific.

2) In section 2.6.1.1, the second sentence should read something like: 
"The message MUST be created as a JMS BytesMessage or TextMessage as 
defined in 2.4 The JMS Message Body."

3) In section 2.6.2.3, the third sentence should read something like: "If 
the request message is a TextMessage, then the response message MUST be a 
TextMessage.   If the request message is a BytesMessage, then the response 

message MUST be a BytesMessage."

4) In section 2.7.1, the second sentence should read: "The message MUST be 

created as a JMS BytesMessage or a TextMessage as defined in 2.4 The JMS 
Message Body."

5) I believe there is enough support within the group to introduce a 
property within the WSDL called "messageType" which could be set to
TEXT to indicate a TextMessage or BYTES to indicate a BytesMessage. This 
change would apply to both WSDL 1.1 and WSDL 2.0.

6) I think we also agreed (although the discussion was short) to mention 
something in the binding spec about the need to do base64-encoding of 
binary MIME parts if a MIME multi-part message is going to be inserted 
into a TextMessage.

7) We also discussed the performance implications of doing 
base64-encoding, including the memory implications, and IIRC we talked 
about adding some words to the binding spec to warn vendors about this 
issue.

Phil Adams 
WebSphere Development - Web Services
IBM Austin, TX
email: phil_adams@us.ibm.com
office: (512) 838-6702  (tie-line 678-6702)
mobile: (512) 750-6599




From:
Roland Merrick <roland_merrick@uk.ibm.com>
To:
public-soap-jms@w3.org
Date:
10/03/2008 06:42 AM
Subject:
Agenda for 2008-10-07




Greetings, our next call will take place on Tuesday 2008-10-07 at 16:00UTC 
and last for 1 hour. 
 
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingdetails.html?year=2008&month=10&day=07&hour=16&min=0&sec=0&p1=136&p2=179&p3=283 


We will be using the Zakim bridge [1], the phone numbers and passcode for 
the call can be found at: 
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/admin 

Participants are invited to join IRC channel #soap-jms as documented on 
the WG's administrative home page: 
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/admin#irc 

Minutes of last call :  http://www.w3.org/2008/09/30-soap-jms-minutes.html 


Oustanding Actions 
        http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/open 
Agenda 
Regrets: none 

Review all open actions 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TextMessage - how do we support it? 
  - Phil's proposed changes to spec
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Sep/0035.html 
This topic has been ongoing for a while and was agreed by those on the 
2008-09-30 call. If there any concerns please send them to the mailing 
before this call so that they can be reviewed and allowing us to close 
off this topic. 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Is WSDL portion of specification normative, continued? [2]
- whatever the collective decision, 
  text needs to be improved for clarity of our intent

[2] - Email from Roland of 2008-09-25:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Sep/0039.html 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Sep/0043.html 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
URI spec, what changes do we want?
- Action35 [3] Eric proposal [4]
[3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/35

[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Sep/0046.html


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Specifying additional JNDI parameters, [5] & [6]
- Should these JNDI items go into the URI? [7]
- Do we need to worry about non-String JNDI values? Answer - don't think 
so.

[5] - Email from Derek of 2008-09-22
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Sep/0028.html


[6] - Email from Eric of 2008-09-22
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Sep/0031.html


[7] - Email from Peter of 2008-09-22
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Sep/0026.html



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
JMS headers, do we want to allow for setting arbitrary headers? [8] 

[8] - Email from Peter of 2008-09-25
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Sep/0041.html



Pubs 

SOAP over Java™ Message Service 1.0 
Editor Draft 
  [ 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8 
]

First Public Working Draft published 
  [ http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-soapjms-20080723/ ]

Next draft: Last Call, milestone plan in Charter says Sept 2008 

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