[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Raw chat log of 2008-12-11 call
Simon Holdsworth: Audio conference:
Meeting Number: * 913929 * (press * before and after the digits)
Phone numbers:
Austria = Vienna 026822056419
Belgium = Brussels 022901709
China Toll Free = China North 108007121722, China South 108001201722
Denmark = Copenhagen 32714982
France = Paris 0170994364, Lyon 0426840196, Marseilles 0488915310
Germany = Berlin 030726167296, Frankfurt 069710445413, Hamburg
040809020620, Munich 089244432767, Stuttgart 0711490813212, Dusseldorf
021154073845
India Toll Free = 0008001006703
Ireland = Dublin 014367612
Italy = Milan 0230413007, Rome 06452108288, Turin 01121792100
Japan = Tokyo 0357675037
Netherlands = Amsterdam 0207965349
Portugal = Lisbon 211200415
Russia Toll Free = 81080022074011
Spain = Barcelona: 934923140, Madrid: 917889793
Sweden = Stockholm 0850520404
Switzerland = Geneva 0225927186
UK Toll Free = 08003581667
UK Toll = London 02071542988, Manchester 01612500379, Birmingham
01212604587
USA Toll Free = 18665289390
USA Toll = 19543344789
Simon Holdsworth: Agenda:
Simon Holdsworth: 1. Opening
Introductions
Roll call
Scribe assignment
Top 10 on the scribe list:
Nimish Hathalia TIBCO Software Inc.
Plamen Pavlov SAP AG
Laurent Domenech TIBCO Software Inc.
Anish Karmarkar Oracle Corporation
Tom Rutt Fujitsu Limited
Eric Johnson TIBCO Software Inc.
Ashok Malhotra Oracle Corporation
Khanderao Kand Oracle Corporation
David Booz IBM
Bryan Aupperle IBM
Agenda bashing
2. Approval of the minutes from 1st-4th December virtual F2F
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/30294/SCA%20Bindings%20minutes%202008-12-01.doc
3. Actions
20080717-4 [Sanjay Patil] Provide examples for issue 24
20080717-6 [Vladimir Savchenko] Send out a proposal for how WSDL
bindings and portTypes relate to each other. Target: 14th August
20080904-1 [Editors] update SOAP intent as per email
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200808/msg00072.html
20081016-1 [Editors] Update JCA bindings spec to clarify there are no
may provides or always provides intents
4. New Issues
Please note, as per resolution on 9th October 2008, new issues received
on the mailing list after Noon GMT 1st November can only be opened using
the same voting rules as re-opening a closed issue (2/3 majority of a
full TC vote)
No new issues
5. Open Issue Discussion
Open issues with proposed resolutions:
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-11
v"Formal" WSDL generation is unclear, ambiguous, and incomplete
Raiser: Eric Johnson, owner: Eric Johnson, Anish Karmarkar
Status:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200812/msg00054.html
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-31
What is a "plain name" for a connection factories or activation specs,
and how is one distinguished from a JNDI name?
Raiser: Eric Johnson, owner: Simon Holdsworth
Status: Updated proposal in
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200812/msg00027.html
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-40
Clarify rules around combination of destination, CF and AS elements
Raiser: Simon Holdsworth, owner: Simon Holdsworth
Status: Latest email:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200812/msg00028.html
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-42
Clarify default data binding for JMS
Raiser: Simon Holdsworth, owner: Simon Holdsworth
Status: Proposed resolution in email:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200812/msg00007.html
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-44
Update binding.jms spec for wireFormat/operationSelection elements
Raiser: Simon Holdsworth, owner: Simon Holdsworth
Status: Latest email:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200810/msg00073.html
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-55
WSDL 2.0 support
Raiser: Bryan Aupperle, owner: Editors
Status: Proposal in issue
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-57
Add a section documenting naming convention + be consistent on naming
intents (binding.ws)
Raiser: Anish Karmarkar, owner: Editors
Status: Proposal in issue
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-58
Add a section documenting naming convention + be consistent on naming
intents (binding.jca)
Raiser: Anish Karmarkar, owner: Editors
Status: Proposal in issue
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-59
Add a section documenting naming convention + be consistent on naming
intents (binding.jms)
Raiser: Anish Karmarkar, owner: Editors
Status: Proposal in issue
Open issues with identified resolution owner:
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-2
How should SCA callback semantics be carried over Web Services?
Raiser: Simon Nash, owner: Anish Karmarkar
Status: Proposed resolution:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200812/msg00043.html
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-21
Support for callback and conversation ID-s in bindings
Raiser: Peter Peshev, owner Peter Peshev
Status: Proposed resolution in issue
Notes: As for BINDINGS-2, this is waiting for clarification around
conversations at the assembly level
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-39
JMS callback specification does not cater for callbacks using other
bindings
Raiser: Simon Holdsworth, owner Simon Holdsworth
Status: Complete resolution proposal required
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-43
Update binding.ws spec for wireFormat/operationSelection elements
Raiser: Simon Holdsworth, owner: Anish Karmarkar
Status: Specific resolution text required.
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-45
Update binding.jca spec for wireFormat/operationSelection elements
Raiser: Simon Holdsworth, owner: Piotr Przybylski
Status: Specific resolution text required.
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-54
Endpoint URI algorithm is unclear
Raiser: Eric Johnson, owner: Eric Johnson
Status: Initial proposal in JIRA.
Open issues with no identified resolution owner:
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-22
Bindings specifications should provide exemplary Implementations for
Callbacks and Conversations
Raiser: Mike Edwards
Status: No proposed resolution
Notes: As for BINDINGS-2, this is waiting for clarification around
conversations at the assembly level
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-23
@wsdlElement definition needs clarification on "equivalent" and use of
WSDL 2.0 constructs
Raiser: Eric Johnson
Status: Specific resolution text required
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-24
Which wire did a message arrive on?
Raiser: Sanjay Patil
Status: Waiting for examples from Sanjay as per 20080717-4
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-25
Is it required that every implementation of binding.ws support the soap
intent?
Raiser: Anish Karmarkar
Status: No current proposal. Latest email:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200807/msg00006.html
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-29
Properties on Bindings
Raiser: Piotr Przybylski
Status: No current proposal; defer until Policy 15 (External Attachment)
is resolved
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-48
How are mayProvide intents on bindings satisfied
Raiser: Ashok Malhotra
Status: No current proposal; latest email:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200810/msg00041.html
5. AOB
anish: Scribe: Anish
anish: Topic:Approval of the minutes from 1st-4th December virtual F2F
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/30294/SCA%20Bindings%20minutes%202008-12-01.doc
anish: Minutes approved w/o
anish: Topic: Actions
anish: no change to the pending AIs
anish: No new issues for today
anish: Topic: Issue 11
anish: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-11
v"Formal" WSDL generation is unclear, ambiguous, and incomplete
Raiser: Eric Johnson, owner: Eric Johnson, Anish Karmarkar
Status:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200812/msg00054.html
anish: Eric explains his response to Mike's comments
anish: (the response is in the email at msg00054 in 200812)
Mike Edwards: Intents are always a restriction
anish: In section 4.2.2, what should be the normativeness of SOAP 1.1
binding or SOAP 1.2 binding
Mike Edwards: if there are intents present - they DO restirct what can
be done
anish forgot i was the scribe
Mike Edwards: easily done when you're involved in the debate
anish: anish: i don't think we should restrict what a runtime should do
outside of metadata
anish: SimonH: perhaps anish should raise a separate issue
anish: SimonN: we do need a clarification on section 4.1
anish: Action: Anish to open a new issue regarding the MUSTs in section 4.1
anish: SimonH: it should be easy wrt 4.1 to write a test for this. eg:
send a soap 1.1 msg and make sure it succeed and send soap 1.2 msg and
make sure it fails
anish: Eric: SimonN had a proposal for restating a stmt, we didn't
capture it
anish: Eric: the last issue is about the NS on rpc/literal
anish: ... the pattern defines a type and a NS is needed for the element
anish: ... four options called out
Simon Nash: Bindings for SOAP 1.1 MUST be provided and additional
bindings MAY be provided, unless policy is applied that explicitly
restricts this.
anish: ... anish and I had a discussion on it and I agreed with him that
we ought to say something
anish: ... of the 4 options, 1st is to say nothing the other three
options are to say something
Simon Nash: take 2: Bindings for SOAP 1.1 MUST be provided and
additional bindings MAY be provided, unless explicitly restricted by policy.
anish: Eric: would be useful for using a NS associated with the binding
for dispatching case
anish: Anish: want to made sure that it is clear what messages to send
to the service
anish: ... if the generated wsdl is available and the clients get that
then it should probably be ok, but there is also a usecase of unmanaged
client code that has access to SCA metadata
anish: Eric: implementations may want to do late binding and generate
WSDL bidnings that contain additional policies etc
anish: SimonH: is it possible that the portType may have additional
information that restrict the choice of NS. Such as PT generated by JAX-WS
anish ping
anish: anish: very good question, doesn't jax-ws have annotations for this?
anish: Eric: i should take an action to research that
anish: Eric: we could say that unless there is additional metadata that
tells you what to do use 'this' uri
anish: Action: Eric to research whether JAX-WS portType generation
restricts the NS used in rpc-literal
anish: Topic: Issue 31
anish: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-31
What is a "plain name" for a connection factories or activation specs,
and how is one distinguished from a JNDI name?
Raiser: Eric Johnson, owner: Simon Holdsworth
Status: Updated proposal in
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200812/msg00027.html
anish: Simon explains the issue
anish: Proposal:
anish: rename "name" attribute to "jndiName".
Describe the jndiName attribute (in this example for a Destination) as
follows:
* binding.jms/destination/@jndiName the JNDI name of the JMS
Destination that the binding uses to send or receive messages. The
behaviour of this attribute is determined by the value of the @create
attribute as follows:
o If the @create attribute value is "always" then the
@jndiName attribute is optional; if the destination cannot be created at
the specified location then the SCA runtime MUST raise an error. If the
@jndiName attribute is omitted this specification places no restriction
on the JNDI location of the created resource.
o If the @create attribute value is "ifnotexist" then the
@jndiName attribute MUST specify the location of the possibly existing
destination; if the destination does not exist at this location, but
cannot be created there then the SCA runtime MUST raise an error. If
the jndiName refers to an existing resource other than a JMS Destination
of the specified type then the SCA runtime MUST raise an error.
o If the @create attribute value is "never" then the
@jndiName attribute MUST specify the location of the existing
destination; If the destination is not present at the location, or the
location refers to a resource other than a JMS Destination of the
specified type then the SCA runtime MUST raise an error.
The "plain name" referred to in the current spec is really there
to be an attribute of the created resource. I think it makes more sense
then for that to be amongst the properties that are children of the
element, and not a standard attribute.
Remove the sentences that say "This can either be a JNDI name or
a plain connection factory name.". as they are currently describing
elements, not the name attribute of those elements and so are just
incorrect.
Update the examples to rename the "name" attribute to "jndiName",
and/or move to inside the resource element for creation examples as
appropriate.
Update the XML schema to rename "name" to "jndiName", and make
the value type "anyURI".
anish: Simon walks through the proposal
anish: Eric: no comments, thanks for clarifying
anish: Eric moves Bryan seconds to accept the proposal at
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200812/msg00027.html
to resolve issue 31
anish: Motion passes w/o, issue 31 is resolved
anish: next call will be the last one this year
anish: SimonH: next week we'll have a discussion on our next f2f
anish: Meeting adjourned
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]