- From: Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
- Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 13:39:38 +0100
- To: SOAP-JMS <public-soap-jms@w3.org>
SOAP-JMS WG - the following is my 2nd draft of the request to progress to PR, integrating feedback from Yves. Specifically, Yves noted that it would be appropriate to link to: * a report of issues raised during our Last Call * declarations of conformance by implementations. So I've done so. Further comments welcome! -Eric ====================================================================== Dear Colleagues, The SOAP-JMS Working Group requests transition to Proposed Recommendation for the SOAP over Java Messaging Service 1.0 specification. Document title -------------- SOAP over Java Messaging Service 1.0 URLs ---- Draft: http://dev.w3.org/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms-2011-PR.html Final: http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/PR-soapjms-20111108/ Abstract -------- The abstract can be found at: http://dev.w3.org/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms-2011-PR.html#abstract Status ------ The status of the document can be found at: http://dev.w3.org/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms-2011-PR.html#status Estimated publication date: --------------------------- November 15, 2011 Records ------- Decision to request the transition: (TBD) Significant Changes Since Previous Publication ---------------------------------------------- * clarified text around the use of BytesMessage and TextMessage * added support for "contentEncoding" * improvements to non-normative text * miscellaneous editorial changes For a complete report, see: URL-TBD Evidence That Documentation Satisfies Group's Requirements ---------------------------------------------------------- The background section of the document establishes what the document aims to define, and links to those portions of the specification: http://dev.w3.org/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms-2011-PR.html#introduction-background Evidence that Dependencies Have Been Met ---------------------------------------- This specification has no normative dependency issues. Evidence for Wide Review ------------------------ There exist at least four implementations, including at least one open source implementation. Comments arrived on our public mailing list from parties previously unknown to members of the WG. Evidence that issues have been formally addressed ------------------------------------------------- All issues raised on the public mailing list resulted in issues entered in our tracker, and all issues in the issue tracker have been addressed to the satisfaction of the person who raised the issue. Specifically, you can see our disposition of comments since our last last public release: http://dev.w3.org/2008/ws/soapjms/disposition-of-comments-2011-PR.html Implementation Information -------------------------- Three implementations have publicly stated that they pass the test suite defined by the WG. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2011Aug/0002.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2011Oct/0008.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2011Apr/0003.html ... and from the Apache CXF project, over a sequence of emails ... https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cxf-dev/201104.mbox/%3C201104051045.04251.dkulp%40apache.org%3E https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cxf-dev/201104.mbox/%3C4DACB9C1.4080008%40tibco.com%3E https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/cxf-dev/201104.mbox/%3C201104191250.00242.dkulp%40apache.org%3E Objections ---------- None raised Patent disclosures ------------------ None Eric Johnson, Chair, SOAP-JMS working group
Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2011 14:24:09 UTC