Last Update: $Date: 2011-11-01 13:40:56 $
With the exception of one issue raised against the document, all have been resolved to the satisfaction of SOAP/JMS Working Group. Previous versions of the specification also had comments which were resolved.
Almost all issues were raised by members of the working group, although sometimes as proxies for other people within the same organization as the person originating the comment/feedback.
Resolution summary below is one of the following:
Closed – issue accepted, addressed, and resolved to the satisfaction of the reporter
Agreed – issue accepted, addressed, and resolved, with no official word from the reporter
|
ID |
Raised by |
Details: Title/Comments |
|
Mark Phillips |
Title: Link to URI specification is incorrect |
|
|
Commentary: Opened, application approved – xml diff. |
||
|
Eric Johnson |
Title: Allow EXI as characterization for XML in the JMS body ? |
|
|
Commentary: Opened, application approved – xml diff. |
||
|
Phil Adams |
Title: Need a SOAP 1.2-specific SOAP/JMS transport URL value |
|
|
Commentary: Opened, resolved, application approved – xml diff. |
||
|
Andrew Kennedy |
Title: Broken JMS header properties example code |
|
|
Commentary: Opened, resolved, application approved – xml diff And approval by Andrew Kennedy. |
||
|
Mark Phillips |
Title: Ambiguity in spec. and potential interoperability problem with BytesMessage payload |
|
|
Commentary: Opened, resolved, application approved – xml diff |
||
|
Derek Rokicki |
Title: The spec should clearly state that vendors must support both BytesMessage and TextMessage. |
|
|
Commentary: Opened, resolved, application approved – xml diff |
|
Peter Easton |
Title: Missing test for Protocol 2070, references to WSDLUsage assertions from various test cases |
|