OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-bindings message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Raw Minutes of Oct 16 Teleconf


The raw chat for Oct 16 Teleconf :
----
Agenda:
1. Opening

Introductions
Roll call
Scribe assignment


Agenda bashing

2. Approval of minutes of SCA-Binding TC meeting of 9th October

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/29635/SCA%20Bindings%20minutes%202008-10-09.doc 


3. Actions

20080304-9 [Editors] Update specs for outcome of ASSEMBLY-55 when it is 
resolved.
20080424-1 [Editors] Action: editors to incorporate editorial issue from 
Erics email into the specs. Original email: 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200804/msg00008.html 
Latest email: 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200806/msg00023.html 
(done for WS, still outstanding for JMS and JCA)
20080717-2 [Editors] Produce a revision of the forthcoming CDs to 
include RFC2119 re-writing by Sept 15th 2008; updated deadline Oct 20th 
2008
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
20080717-10 [Simon Holdsworth] Submit proposal for issue 7. Pending 
acceptance/resolution of Policy issue 60
20080904-1 [Editors] update SOAP intent as per email 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200808/msg00072.html
20081009-1 [Simon Holdsworth] Produce specific resolution text for issue 42

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)

BINDINGS-48: Clarify default data binding for JMS when sending messages
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-48
Latest email: 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200810/msg00033.html

5. Testing

Discuss progress on Assembly TC on testing specification, volunteers to 
liaise on testing/listen in on testing mailing list?

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly-testing/200810/msg00000.html 


6. Open Issue Discussion

Open issues with proposed resolutions:

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/200808/msg00071.html 
Latest email: 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200808/msg00073.html

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-11
"Formal" WSDL generation is unclear, ambiguous, and incomplete
Raiser: Eric Johnson, owner: Eric Johnson, Anish Karmarkar
Status: Latest email: 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200810/msg00012.html

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-27
Identifying data binding and operation selection
Raiser: Mike Rowley, owner: Mike Edwards
Status: ASSEMBLY-79 resolution accepted, new issues opened for impact on 
each binding.

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 email 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200810/msg00013.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/200810/msg00004.html

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-47
Clarify default data binding for JMS when sending messages
Raiser: Simon Holdsworth, owner: Simon Holdsworth
Status: Proposed resolution in issue

Open issues with identified resolution owner:

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-7
JMS bindingType and ordered intent - clarification needed
Raiser: Peter Peshev, owner Simon Holdsworth
Status: Awaiting decision on POLICY-60.

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-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-44
Update binding.jms spec for wireFormat/operationSelection elements
Raiser: Simon Holdsworth, owner: Simon Holdsworth
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.

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

7. AOB

Scribe: Tom Rutt

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Topic: Agenda Bashing


Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Minutes of last meeting approved 
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/29635/SCA%20Bindings%20minutes%202008-10-09.doc

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Agenda accepted

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Topic: Actions

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): All Actions still open

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Topic: New Issues

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): BINDINGS-48: Clarify default data binding for JMS 
when sending messages
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-48
Latest email: 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200810/msg00033.html

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Issue acceptance was tabled at last meeting.

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Mike E gave a review of the email discussions on New 
Issue Proposal 48

Simon Holdsworth: 
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200810/msg00041.html

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Proposed resolution for Issue POLICY-56 is relevant 
to this new issue BINDINGS-48

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): The resolution of POLICY-56 is worth reading in this 
light:

- a binding type MAY have parameters (other than intents & policy sets) 
that affect policy related attributes of the binding
BUT IF this is the case and a particular binding instance has those 
parameters set in a way which is in conflict with the intents
and/or policySets applied to a binding instance, THEN the runtime must 
raise an error.

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Mike E: So I think that the resolution of Issue 48 
means writing a new section (6.1? in cd01-rev1) which describes whether
any of the configuration parameters defined for binding.jms affect any 
of the listed intents and if so, how to avoid
error situations.

anish: mike, thx for a very good detailed explanation

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): If config parms collide with intents, state what 
they are (should not use two together)

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Anish: What happens if particular implementation 
provides a may provides intent always? Should it be marked as always 
Provided?

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Simon H: should we have new issue with Mike E points 
or refine this issue 48 statement?

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Mike E: I recommend change the text of Issue to last 
lines at bottom, with reference to the email

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Eric: New issue text should be "The treatment of may 
provides in bindings spec is incorrect and needs to be fixed" <provide 
ref to Mike E email.

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Mike E: Move to open this new issue 48 with text: 
"The treatment of may provides in bindings-JMS spec is incorrect and 
needs to be fixed"

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Action:Editors to update JCA bindings spec to 
clarify there are no may provides or always provides intents

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Mike: also add reference to email in issue

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Bryan seconded Mike motion

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Mike: the motion is to replace the issue text completely

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): No objections, motion passed, Issue Bindings 48 
accepted as amended.

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Topic: Testing

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Email from Mike E:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly-testing/200810/msg00000.html

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Mike E: updated Assembly spec has RFC 2119 
statements labeled explicitly, and there is a table at the end of the 
spec with this labled conformance statements

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Range of conformance test is subset of all possible 
RFC 2119 based statements in spec

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Mike E: we need someone to volunteer to do this for 
the Bindings specs

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Mike E: about 10 minutes per conformance statement, 
10 minutes per test

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): MIke E: more elaborate statements could take an hour 
or so each

anish having been involved in testing in W3C XMLP WG, I can tell you 
that testing can be a large time suck. But there is no way around it

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Mike E: everyone should look at the specs, and then 
should volunteer for writing test cases for some of the conformance 
statements

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Mike E: can do this with email, perhaps we can have 
separate con calls if warranted

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Mike E: I am happy to coordinate this effort

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Simon H: everyone should look at referenced email, 
and respond to Mike

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Topic: Issues Resolutions

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Bindings 27

Dave Booz: the binding specific issues are 43,44,45

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-27
Identifying data binding and operation selection
Raiser: Mike Rowley, owner: Mike Edwards
Status: ASSEMBLY-79 resolution accepted, new issues opened for impact on 
each binding.

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Eric: Move we close issue 27 as resoloved, Dave seconded

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): No objections to motion, issue resolved

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Bindings 47

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-47
Clarify default data binding for JMS when sending messages
Raiser: Simon Holdsworth, owner: Simon Holdsworth
Status: Proposed resolution in issue

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): From Issue text: PROPOSAL:

Update:

Otherwise, the JMSMessage must be a JMS text message or bytes message 
containing XML; an SCA runtime MUST be able to receive both forms. When 
sending messages either form may be used; an SCA runtime MAY provide 
additional configuration to allow one or other to be selected.

Add:

When sending messages, if there is a single parameter, the JMS user 
property "scaOperationName" MUST be set to the name of the operation 
being invoked.

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Eric: I can take action to send out reference to 
Soap JMS bindings spec work relevant to this issue

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Action: Eric will send link to list regarding Soap 
JMS bindings work

Simon Nash: .... the SCA runtime MUST set the JMS user property 
"scaOperationName" ....

Simon Nash: When sending request messages, if there is a single 
parameter, the SCA runtime MUST set the JMS user property 
"scaOperationName" to the name of the operation being invoked.

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Simon H: I am happy with this new phrasing of the 
added text

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Simon N Moved to resolve issue with amended text, 
seconded by Bryan

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): No objections, Issue Bindings 47 resolved with 
Proposal as ammended  for addition

Tom Rutt (Fujitsu): Meeting Adjourned.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt	email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]