Re: [sca-bindings] JMS CD03-rev1 with proposed updates for issues 95, 105, 106

[Simon Holdsworth <simon_holdsworth@uk.ibm.com>]

Eric,

I have no idea how there are two references
in the @selector definition - I only see two in the final or final showing
markup views, and if I accept all changes I only see one reference.  However
I've retyped that part which should have fixed the duplicate cross reference.

I don't understand the comments about
section 3.2 and 3.3 - the text has the options listed including numbers,
with 1) also having (highest priority) and the last having (lowest priority).
 There is no text after the normative statements, the priority order
is defined within the normative statements.

Here's a .PDF version with the selector
and wireformat references fixed:



I'd suggest we use this as the basis
of the resolution rather than the .doc one so there's no ambiguity, although
its not so easy to move from one change to the next.

Regards, Simon

Simon Holdsworth
STSM, SCA Bindings Architect; Master Inventor; OASIS SCA Bindings TC Chair,
AT&T and Boeing Lab Advocate
MP 211, IBM UK Labs, Hursley Park, Winchester SO21 2JN, UK
Tel +44-1962-815059 (Internal 245059) Fax +44-1962-816898
Internet - Simon_Holdsworth@uk.ibm.com

From:	Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
To:	Simon Holdsworth/UK/IBM@IBMGB
Cc:	sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org
Date:	10/02/2010 19:58
Subject:	Re: [sca-bindings] JMS CD03-rev1 with proposed updates for issues 95, 105, 106

---

Hi Simon,

Thanks for putting this together.

Items (I'm using OpenOffice so I could be seeing bugs in conversion):

• Section 3: definition of /binding.jms/messageSelection/@selector - seems to have a reference to both section 3.2 & 3.3
• in the ../headers/property elements, I like the addition of "and type" that appears to be new with this proposal.
• Section 3: definition of /binding.jms/response/wireFormat - the link that used to go to section #4 now seems to go to section 3.2
• New section 3.2 doesn't actually seem to have the priority orders specified after either of the normative statements in the text, but does have them at the end of the document with all the normative statements.
• Section 3.3 suffers the same problem as 3.2
• I'm seeing a change to BJM40010, which looks fine, but isn't a part of this resolution.  Looks like this is the broken reference you indicated is fixed.  The text of the normative statement is doubled-up, for me.

The problems all might be artifacts of the
DOC --> ODT conversion, but I suspect not.  Can you send a PDF?

-Eric.

On 02/08/2010 07:00 AM, Simon Holdsworth wrote: 

Folks, 

As per our discussion on Thursday, here's an updated copy of the latest
revision of the JMS binding spec with the proposed updates to resolve BINDINGS-95,
105 and 106. 



All marked updates pertain to the resolution of these issues; there was
also a broken reference in cd03-rev1 which I've fixed here as an aide-memoir.

I've made some additional editorial changes at the places where the original
normative statements were removed, to point to the rules defined in the
new sections. I've also clarified that the user property elements provide
the name and type of the user properties, and included "selector"
as one of the URL paramaters with specific semantics. 

Regards, Simon 

Simon Holdsworth

---

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

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

---

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

sca-jmsbinding-1.1-spec-cd03-rev1-issues95+105+106.pdf