Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E731A3A70C2 for ; Mon, 4 May 2009 13:34:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.428 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.428 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.451, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 5umDW+-I3o9h for ; Mon, 4 May 2009 13:34:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com [209.85.146.176]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40F563A7098 for ; Mon, 4 May 2009 13:34:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id l35so1612452waf.5 for ; Mon, 04 May 2009 13:35:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: mark@coactus.com Received: by 10.114.210.3 with SMTP id i3mr4813577wag.226.1241469329678; Mon, 04 May 2009 13:35:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <49FF3948.2070207@tibco.com> References: <498B7309.5080006@alvestrand.no> <49C43146.1070100@tibco.com> <49C483AD.2000700@alvestrand.no> <49E38C2A.8080104@tibco.com> <49FF3948.2070207@tibco.com> Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 13:35:29 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: e97baa6c54b36be5 Message-ID: From: Mark Baker To: Eric Johnson Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "SOAP/JMS \(list\)" , apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [APPS-REVIEW] Review of draft-merrick-jms-uri-05 X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 20:34:07 -0000 Eric, On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Eric Johnson wrote: > We've not heard back from anyone on this previous question. =A0If the > above proposed change is a helpful clarification, please let us know. > Otherwise, we're going to leave the JMS scheme proposal as it is. >From my POV, it doesn't make any difference. Mark. Return-Path: X-Original-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: apps-review@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C08AD3A6919 for ; Mon, 4 May 2009 11:51:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.392 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.207, BAYES_40=-0.185] 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 6uNElaIEp7fZ for ; Mon, 4 May 2009 11:51:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.tibco.com (mx1.tibco.com [63.100.100.181]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D6033A6A3E for ; Mon, 4 May 2009 11:50:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.tibco.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 45A464C3C4; Mon, 4 May 2009 11:52:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na-pa-fe01.na.tibco.com (tibco-5.tibco.com [63.100.100.5]) by mx1.tibco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 301294C3A7; Mon, 4 May 2009 11:51:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.98.36.130] ([10.98.36.130]) by na-pa-fe01.na.tibco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 4 May 2009 11:51:49 -0700 Message-ID: <49FF3948.2070207@tibco.com> Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 11:51:52 -0700 From: Eric Johnson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090407) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "SOAP/JMS (list)" References: <498B7309.5080006@alvestrand.no> <49C43146.1070100@tibco.com> <49C483AD.2000700@alvestrand.no> <49E38C2A.8080104@tibco.com> In-Reply-To: <49E38C2A.8080104@tibco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 May 2009 18:51:50.0050 (UTC) FILETIME=[6201C820:01C9CCE9] Cc: Lisa Dusseault , apps-review@ietf.org Subject: Re: [APPS-REVIEW] Review of draft-merrick-jms-uri-05 X-BeenThere: apps-review@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Applications Review List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 18:51:18 -0000 Hi Harald, (and other apps-review members), We do have one follow-up question, below: Eric Johnson wrote: [snip] > Further responses, inline below. > > Harald Alvestrand wrote: >> Eric Johnson wrote: [snip] >>> >>> Harald Alvestrand wrote: [snip] >>>> - in section 4.2.1, it seems somewhat bizarre that the JNDI-specific >>>> parameters all start with "jndi", while section 4.2.1.4 states that >>>> additional JNDI-specific parameters should start wiht "jndi-" (note the >>>> additional dash). Why not be uniform? >>>> >>> We're still discussing this in the working group. We've not settled on >>> an answer because I think there multiple tensions here, such as between >>> brevity and completeness, familiarity vs. convention, and so forth. >>> We'll hopefully have a more complete answer soon. >>> >> Good. > > Here's the break-down. There are actually three classes of properties > being specified in the parameters: > 1. Standard properties for identifying JNDI > * jndiInitialContextFactory > * jndiURL > 2. Custom properties for connecting to JNDI - need to spell out the > runtime name for these parameters. > * Parameters we currently suggest start with "jndi-" > 3. JDNI Resources to retrieve once connected\ > * jndiConnectionFactoryName > > We use the hyphen in case #2 to flag that what follows the hyphen is an > actual string value for the name of a property to set when constructing > the Map for the initial context. We discussed always using the actual > Java constants even for case #1, but that would mean that instead of > specifying "jndiURL", we'd have to specify: > > * jndi-java.naming.provider.url (jndiURL) > * jndi-java.naming.factory.initial (jndiInitialContextFactory) > > In this case, we think convention, brevity, and clarity trumps > consistency, in that most JMS developers think of the "jndiURL" instead > of the "java.naming.provider.url" > > That does, however, leave the question open - what should we do about > the "jndi-" case, where the URI needs to contain the actual name of the > property to use? We had chosen the "jndi-" prefix over an alternate > prefix of "jndiContextParameter-", because we thought that we didn't > lose much in the brevity. > > Now that we observe that we apparently did lose something in the > brevity. In our first encounter outside our working group we got the > equivalent of a "huh?" from you. To remedy, we propose switching back to > the more verbose prefix of "jndiContextParameter-". > > Do you think switching prefixes allays your concerns? We've not heard back from anyone on this previous question. If the above proposed change is a helpful clarification, please let us know. Otherwise, we're going to leave the JMS scheme proposal as it is. -Eric.