<trackbot> Date: 12 January 2010

<eric> Mark - are you joining us on the phone?

yes, apologies - having phone trouble - 2 mins

<eric> Scribe - eric for now.

No Objections to previous minutes

Review Action Items

Eric: Has made progress on 108

Mark: No progress on 123, or 125

Phil: Has done 127 and 128

URI specification:

Eric: Need to talk to Oracle
... URI spec expired on Jan 1st - is still available and we do not propose to renew it until we have agreed the new IP language

Raised issues

Phil: Issue 21 was raised in error

All: No objections to closing issue 21

RESOLUTION: Issue 21 will be closed

Accepting proposals to close open issues

None

Accepting applied resolutions

https://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/19

RESOLUTION: All accept the applied resolution of issue 19

Thise closes action 127

close-127

close action-127

<trackbot> ACTION-127 Apply the resolution for Issue 19 closed

close action-128

<trackbot> ACTION-128 Apply the resolution for Issue 20 closed

<padams2> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Dec/0010.html

Issue 20

https://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/20

RESOLUTION: All approve the application of the resolution for issue 20

FAQ - Comments anyone?

No comments

Testing

Relates to Eric's mail on action 108

<eric> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Jan/0002.html

Phil: Took action item 130 related to this
... Intended to prototype a test case that includes parameters in a WSDL document

Eric: The most important assertions that we have are those that assert priority (precedence) of properties, and those that assert the existence of properties / message formation
... We could add data to the test cases we already have which would be (apparently) redundant in the non-WSDL test cases, but that would test precedence when applied to WSDL tests

e.g. See testcase 6 https://dev.w3.org/2008/ws/soapjms/testcases/testcases/testcases.html#test0006

we could add information in the WSDL 1.1 port and verify that the values from the port are used instead of the binding

OR we could add new test cases to test the precedence rules - this would be ~16 new test cases

/~16/6/

scribe: and this number would double to account for WSDL 2.0

another 4 tests would cover tests on the binding - giving a total of 16 WSDL tests

Phil: The URI does not necessarily mean the URI specified in the WSDL (but it will be easier to document and understand the test case if we use the WSDL URI)
... Seems like a reasonable approach

Mark: Tests 6 & 7 already test the bindings - so these aren't all new tests

Eric: Agreed - we need to update tests 6 & 7 to reflect the fact that they also test assertion #3002

Phil: Eric's work means we can close action 30, so I will take an action to develop the first two additional tests (for properties on the service)

Eric: ...and I will take the remaining 10

Phil: We can specify just the relevant fragments of WSDL in the test cases

<scribe> ACTION: Phil to update test cases 6 & 7 to reflect the decison on WSDL snippets [recorded in https://www.w3.org/2010/01/12-soap-jms-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-131 - Update test cases 6 & 7 to reflect the decison on WSDL snippets [on Phil Adams - due 2010-01-19].

Phil: Use action 130 to prototype new test cases

Implementations

Eric: TIBCO working on implementation - probably first half of 2010

Mark: IBM working on another implementation outside WebSphere
... Would 2 independent implentations from IBM count towards the W3C test criteria

Yves: Yes -if they are from different code bases, though it is less ambiguous if they are from different vendors

AOB

None