public-soap-jms@w3.org from July 2010 by date

Wednesday, 28 July 2010

• Minutes 2010-07-27 Mark Phillips

Tuesday, 27 July 2010

• New draft of jms URI scheme Eric Johnson

Monday, 26 July 2010

• Agenda for the 2010-07-27 conference call Eric Johnson

Tuesday, 20 July 2010

• Re: Agenda for the 2010-07-20 conference call Eric Johnson
• RE: Agenda for the 2010-07-20 conference call Rokicki, Derek
• Re: Agenda for the 2010-07-20 conference call Phil Adams
• RE: Agenda for the 2010-07-20 conference call Peter Easton

Monday, 19 July 2010

• Agenda for the 2010-07-20 conference call Eric Johnson
• ACTION-190 - reviewing test cases for JMSCorrelationID Eric Johnson
• ISSUE-59 (Tests for JMSCorrelationID): Since adding Protocol-2038 assertion, we now need test cases for non-null JMSCorrelationID [SOAP-JMS Test cases] SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Issue Tracker
• ACTION-194 - apply resolutions to issues 41-46 Eric Johnson

Friday, 16 July 2010

• ACTION-189 complete - applied resolution of ISSUE-40 Eric Johnson
• Re: ACTION 186 - top to bottom review of current copy of spec Eric Johnson
• ISSUE-58 (References section a big blob): No indication of which references are normative, and which are not, also, inconsistently referring to latest/specific version [SOAP-JMS Test cases] SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Issue Tracker
• ISSUE-57 (Unflagged assertion about JMS destination): @location attribute assertion about being a JMS Destination, but not flagged. [SOAP-JMS Binding specification] SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Issue Tracker
• ISSUE-56 (Unflagged assertion about @transport value): @transport value assertion not flagged, should be [SOAP-JMS Binding specification] SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Issue Tracker
• ISSUE-55 (redundant statements about one-way MEP): Section 2.7.2 restates constraints laid out in [SOAP 1.2 Part 3: One-Way MEP], and almost certainly shouldn't [SOAP-JMS Binding specification] SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Issue Tracker
• ISSUE-54 (Unflagged SHOULD about JMSDeliveryMode): Unflagged SHOULD about JMSDeliveryMode - not normative [SOAP-JMS Binding specification] SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Issue Tracker
• ISSUE-53 (Missing case in transition description): Section 2.6.1.3 missing description of what to do on failure [SOAP-JMS Binding specification] SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Issue Tracker
• ISSUE-52 (bogus RFC 2119 keyword in table describing JMSReplyTo): JMSReplyTo description includes inappropriate use of "must" in section 2.6.1.1 [SOAP-JMS Binding specification] SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Issue Tracker
• ISSUE-51 (redundant assertions about message body): Protocol 2034 & 2040 are redundant normative statements about the message body format [SOAP-JMS Binding specification] SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Issue Tracker
• ISSUE-50 (Missing SOAP 1.1 indication): Apparently redundant statements are about different versions of SOAP [SOAP-JMS Binding specification] SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Issue Tracker
• ISSUE-49 (unflagged xml encoding assertion): Unflagged assertion about ignoring XML encoding declaration [SOAP-JMS Binding specification] SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Issue Tracker
• ISSUE-48 (unflagged message body assertions): Unflagged assertions about message body and content type [SOAP-JMS Binding specification] SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Issue Tracker

Thursday, 15 July 2010

• ISSUE-47 (topicReplyToName unflagged assertions): topicReplyToName has two unflagged assertions, some inappropriate. [SOAP-JMS Binding specification] SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Issue Tracker

Tuesday, 13 July 2010

• Completion of Action-192 Mark Phillips
• Minutes 2010-07-13 Mark Phillips

Monday, 12 July 2010

• Agenda for the 2010-07-13 conference call Eric Johnson
• Re: ACTION 186 - top to bottom review of current copy of spec Eric Johnson
• ISSUE-46 (replyToName spurious assertion): replyToName has "SHOULD" assertion about where the message should be sent. [SOAP-JMS Binding specification] SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Issue Tracker
• ISSUE-45 (jndiContextParameter has unflagged RFC 2119): jndiContextParameter has unflagged RFC 2119 keywords, at least one is spurious [SOAP-JMS Binding specification] SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Issue Tracker
• ISSUE-44 (MAY assertion re: props definition): No need to say where a property MAY appear [SOAP-JMS Binding specification] SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Issue Tracker
• ISSUE-43 (Unflagged assertion re all props): Spurious unflagged assertion about all properties in section 2.2 [SOAP-JMS Binding specification] SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Issue Tracker
• ISSUE-42 (Abstract needs improvement): Abstract includes RFC 2119 keyword, fails to mention WSDL [SOAP-JMS Binding specification] SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Issue Tracker
• Re: ACTION 186 - top to bottom review of current copy of spec Eric Johnson
• ACTION 186 - top to bottom review of current copy of spec Eric Johnson

Friday, 9 July 2010

• Action 183 complete - updated to reflect approved changes for ISSUE 38 Eric Johnson
• ACTION-179 done.... Eric Johnson
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Editors list wrong Yves Lafon
• ISSUE-41 (Editors list wrong): Editors list wrong [SOAP-JMS Binding specification] SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Issue Tracker
• NEW ISSUE: Editors list wrong Eric Johnson

Thursday, 8 July 2010

• Applied resolution for Issue 39 (ACTION 188) Mark Phillips
• JMS URI formats Mark Phillips

Wednesday, 7 July 2010

• Minutes 2010-07-06 Mark Phillips

Tuesday, 6 July 2010

• Agenda for 2010-07-06 conference call Eric Johnson
• regrets for today's call Phil Adams
• Applied changes for ACTION-185 Mark Phillips

Friday, 2 July 2010

• Moving forward on the JMS URI scheme Eric Johnson
• FYI: RFC Editors rejected current proposed ID submission for JMS URI scheme Eric Johnson

Last message date: Wednesday, 28 July 2010 09:09:21 UTC