Re: [Uri-review] New version of JMS URI posted.
Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com> Fri, 31 October 2008 22:03 UTC
Return-Path: <uri-review-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: uri-review-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-uri-review-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 563FC3A6A99; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: uri-review@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uri-review@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0990E3A6A64 for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:03:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BSmglciCQWQ9 for <uri-review@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.tibco.com (mx1.tibco.com [63.100.100.181]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C52F3A6802 for <uri-review@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:03:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.tibco.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id DCD834C5D3; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na-h-inhub1.tibco.com (unknown [10.106.128.33]) by mx1.tibco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7D3F4C585; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na-pa-fe01.na.tibco.com (na-pa-fe01.tibco.com [10.106.136.111]) by na-h-inhub1.tibco.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id m9VM3PGm002851; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.98.39.75] ([10.98.39.75]) by na-pa-fe01.na.tibco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:03:25 -0700
Message-ID: <490B80C2.9010304@tibco.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:03:46 -0700
From: Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (X11/20081028)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
References: <48F3CD44.7040803@tibco.com> <e9dffd640810290659p4514b26se56ec50b21df0de9@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <e9dffd640810290659p4514b26se56ec50b21df0de9@mail.gmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Oct 2008 22:03:25.0333 (UTC) FILETIME=[7F4F0450:01C93BA4]
Cc: "SOAP/JMS (list)" <public-soap-jms@w3.org>, uri-review@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Uri-review] New version of JMS URI posted.
X-BeenThere: uri-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proposed URI Schemes <uri-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/uri-review>
List-Post: <mailto:uri-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review>, <mailto:uri-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: uri-review-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: uri-review-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Mark, Mark Baker wrote: > Eric - I'm unable to identify any portion of this new draft that > addresses any of the previous concerns I've raised. > > Unfortunately it appears that the uri-review archives are broken, as > this message of yours is the only one present, so I can't easily point > you at them. But from my email archives, this was the discussion we > had between Feb 15 and Mar 3 of this year concerning the meaning of > "operations" and of what a jms URI actually identifies. I have saved all that mail from that time period as well, and I have your questions. Seeing as you don't specifically call out the questions you have that might remain, that makes it a little difficult for me to intuit exactly which issues we have that might be outstanding. If you could restate precisely your concerns, that would be most helpful. In the last email on the thread, I see this from you: MB >>>>>> When I looked at the JMS spec, what I found was these; http://java.sun.com/j2ee/sdk_1.3/techdocs/api/javax/jms/ConnectionFactory.html http://java.sun.com/j2ee/sdk_1.3/techdocs/api/javax/jms/Destination.html Is that what you meant? <<<<<< MB Seeing as the first sentence of the introduction to the draft proposal now reads: " The "jms" URI scheme is used to designate a javax.jms.Destination object and an associated javax.jms.ConnectionFactory object, and optionally provide additional information concerning the way that the Destination object is to be used." It is not obvious to me how we could possibly be clearer. It seems that we've unambiguously identified precisely that which you indicate. So far as I could tell from reviewing the email thread, the remaining issues that you had were specifically answered by changes we proposed back then, were confusion about terminology, or were concerns that you seemed to have dropped. Any clarifications about specifically what your remaining concerns might be is most welcome. -Eric. > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com> wrote: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-merrick-jms-uri-04.txt >> >> Changes to this draft are discussed here: >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Sep/0046.html >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Oct/0018.html >> >> Please advise with any feedback you might have. >> >> Thanks! >> >> -Eric. _______________________________________________ Uri-review mailing list Uri-review@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review
- [Uri-review] New version of JMS URI posted. Eric Johnson
- Re: [Uri-review] New version of JMS URI posted. Mark Baker
- Re: [Uri-review] New version of JMS URI posted. Eric Johnson