[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Updated proposal for BINDINGS-94
One comment here - I don't know if anyone cares. On 12/11/2009 02:31 AM, Simon Holdsworth wrote: OF09238242.DDEEE0D4-ON80257689.003897F7-80257689.00398473@uk.ibm.com" type="cite"> Over at the W3C, we were discussing a related point in the SOAP/JMS WG. I think we agreed that for SOAP/JMS, we do not need to mandate that the URI be a "jms" URI scheme, but rather that the URI correspond to a JMS Destination, and that it SHOULD be a "jms" URI. That way, if vendors have non-IETF standardized ways of indicating a JMS Destination, it would be possible. What might fit the bill here? The AMQP protocol (and an associated URI), can support JMS type interactions. So it is possible, in the future, that someone could use an AMQP URI, but with the JMS semantics.... This is perhaps overly generous, and too pie-in-the-sky? OF09238242.DDEEE0D4-ON80257689.003897F7-80257689.00398473@uk.ibm.com" type="cite"> The alternate text here could be: "a URI that identifies the JMS Destination to which callback messages are sent. This SHOULD be in the format defined by the IETF URI Scheme for Java™ Message Service 1.0 [IETFJMS]" -Eric. OF09238242.DDEEE0D4-ON80257689.003897F7-80257689.00398473@uk.ibm.com" type="cite"> |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]