Agenda for 2008-09-30

Greetings, our next call will take place on Tuesday 2008-09-30 at 16:00UTC 
and last for 1 hour. 
  
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingdetails.html?year=2008&month=9&day=30&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/2008/09/23-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? 
  - What have we agreed on:
    (Eric's view) 
    * Clients can send either TextMessage or BytesMessage [1]
    * In a request/response MEP the response MUST match the message format 
of the request [1]
    * No changes needed to URI scheme [1]
  - Open issues
    * What do we need to say about TextMessages, attachments, and base64 
encoding? 
    * Do we standardize in a WSDL how to flag use of TextMessage?
      yes [2], or no [1]
[1] - Email from Phil of 2008-09-23:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Sep/0035.html

[2] - Email from Peter of 2008-09-23:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Sep/0036.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Is WSDL portion of specification normative? [3]
  - whatever the collective decision, text needs to be improved for 
clarity of our intent

[3] - 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?
  - Agreed upon changes:
    * Suggestions from Alfred H (no URL).
  - Open items:
    * Update proposal [4] for queue & topic variants - how to address 
reply address? 
      Eliminate "context" variant. (action from weekly call)
[4] - Email from Eric of 2008-09-22
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Sep/0029.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