| [higgins-dev] Notes from January 3rd 2008, Higgins Developers call |
Alex Amies - IBM
Charles Andres - Parity
* Paula Austel - IBM
Anthony Bussani - IBM
* Jeff Broberg CA
* Andy Hodgkinson - Novell
Duane Buss - Novell
* Greg Byrd - NCSU/IBM
* Brian Carrol - Serena
* Tom Doman - Novell
Jeesmon Jacob - Parity
Valery Kokhan - Parity Ukraine
*David Kuehr-Mclaren - IBM
* Mike McIntosh - IBM
*Tony Nadalin - IBM
Nataraj Nagaratnam - IBM
* Dale Olds - Novell
* Drummond Reed - Cordance
* Bruce Rich - IBM
* Mary Ruddy - Parity/SocialPhysics
Markus Sabedello - Parity
* Jim Sermersheim - Novell
Uppili Srinivasan - Oracle
Jim Miles
George Stanchev - Serena
* Daniel Sanders - Novell
* Paul Trevithick - Parity/SocialPhysics
* Carl Binding - IBM
Igor Tsinman - Parity
Lex Sheehan
* Brian Walker - Parity
=====
* Present
Regrets:
Proposed agenda
===============
1) Overall 1.0 Issue status. 9 issues at the moment.
Click "1.0 Issues List" link at top of this page:
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Components
2) Status of specific solutions.
See http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Solutions
3) IPR/Release review status (1 item is checkintocvs), working on the wiki documentation for IPR review
4) Positioning of 1.0, and setting expectations (IdAS API for example).
See http://wiki.eclipse.org/Higgins_1.0
5) Planned Higgins regular F2F January 15-17 in Provo http://wiki.eclipse.org/Jan_15-17_Provo_F2F_Agenda
Notes:
======
1) Overall 1.0 Issue status. 9 issues at the moment.
[Paul]: I sent out a new agenda with the new open bug count
[Mary]: Thanks to those who updated a number of items since I sent out the initial proposed agenda earlier this morning.
[Paul] : Lets start the review at the top of list. Andy?
[Andy]: 196669 is a minor convience we could push it off.[Andy]: Not sure what the other one means. Neither one is a show stopper. Just slight UI tweaks.
[Paul]: I pushed the first one off. The second one is mostly related to the wiki pages - item 206695. I can add to the description. It is important. The concept is trying to document the solution according to the Higgins standards. If we start with the components page. ... Components page; Click on client based identity selector. It bought me to a table. Does that wiki page reflect reality of the solution?
[Paul]: Also at the solutions level - second one is the client-based solution. The main thing here is to get the components page updated so that all the folders have an updated row in this table. Maybe you and I can work on this.
[Andy]: All the code is checked in.
[Paul]: Then it is just updatig the page. There is a new template for how a solution is described.
[Andy]: Yes, lets work though that.
[Paul]: Next one is an item Jim was refactoring. Jim has a pending commit that may break things. Is that correct?
[Jim]: Yes. I went through the code, but didn't know how to change the Jena provider. If I check in the code, Jena will fail
[Paul]: Brian can you coordinate with Jena team on that?
[BrianW]: Yes.
[BrianW]: We can cooridinate on the Jena CP piece.
[Paul]: Hold off another day.
[Paul]: The next item... the code has been attached to a bug assigned to Mike.
[Mike]: The code is checked in, but I need to review the copyrights. The code is in SVN now.
[Mike]: There is another component we should discuss. The RCP selector works with IE and it has a CC++ piece that makes it become activated. It was written so that you could plug in different selectors behind it. Right now you can choose between two selectors. Ideally should chose between all available selectors.
[Mike]:The other thing we have to do is the similar work for other browsers.
[Paul]: For 1.0 we aren't going to do that other work.
[Paul]: We should work together to create a new component row.
[Mike]: How do we deal with nightly builds for C++ stuff that has to be built on windows?
[Mike]: The build process runs on Linux.
[Mike]: May need to set up another build process
[Andy]: DigitalME builds at Novell. Don't have anything integrated with the Higgins build. So it is a problem for us also.
[Mike]: There are platform specific build issues.
[Paul]: This is part of a much bigger conversation about how to launch a selector. The client based selectors. Within the Higgins project we have 3 selectors and at least 3 ways to launch selectors. So obviously our plan is to harmonize these things together. Just can't get it all done for 1.0. But obviously it is high on the agenda.
[Tony]: Maybe goal is to move it to a generic non-windows browser.
[Dale]: It shouldn't even be browser dependent.
......
[Mike]: Even if you don't have a browser, the selector should still pop-up the selector selector.
[Mike]: Need to look at the architecure in a F2F meeting.
[Paul, Mary]: Yes
[Paul]: One of the topics of the F2F is to walk through that. There has been a lot of stuff we have been holding back, trying to get release 1.0 buttoned-up.
[Dale]: One other side effect. I thought there was a conversation coming from an OSIS direction. If that call happend ...
[Paul]: A lot of things were waiting for the Higgins 1.0 stuff. Charles was working on this. Now it is possible to try and put that call together. This relates to a lot of issues.
[Paul]: Obviously this is an interop point with Charles also.
[Charles]: This is Charles. The reality is that those with selectors didn't respond
[Paul]: We appologize. We didn't want to respond until we reached this development point.
[Tony]: We are also concerned that OSIS doesn't have any IPR policy so don't want to do this in OSIS
[Dale]: I'd rather have the Higgins developers on the call. Want get something done. Higgins does have an IPR policy. If the majority of the developers are in Higgins, we can do it in Higgins.
[Tony]: Still can't discuss detail on OSIS list.
[Dale]: OK, then don't want have situation where OSIS says this is what we want to do and then have Higgins disagree
[Drummond]: Can have OSIS call that says the discussion will happen in Higgins.
[ ???]: Some may not come along.
[Tony]: They may have other issues.
[Paul]: There are issues in addition to IPR. There are lots of other issues here. Want to make sure it is done right, open, with process.
[Paul ]: Next bug item is 199319. CardSpace doesn't do this. We could move it off, but ...
[Paul]: Brian, how far along its this?
[BrianW]: Pretty far along. Will finish in next few days..
[Daniel]: If requires a password, how keep it from coming up?
[Mike]: Is the selector replaying the credential to the IdP?
[Paul]: Yes. There is push back to the MS model. Need to do more work on specs, so can defer until can get better specs.
[Mike]: This item needs to be done right. Need to let the user know that a transition has occured. Will be hard to do right.
[Many people]: Comments that we should defer this item.
[Paul]: So I will move that off. The next one is documenting how to build. Been pretty good progress. According to Peter's email, 2-3 more days for ICM piece from build perspective. There hasn't been work done on the deployment builds yet. I think that we should let that item stand. We are focusing on scripts and doc, rather than code at this stage.
[Paul]: Next is 200538. Recommend we push it off
[Paul]: The next open item may have done a disservice to Tom.
[Tom]: Looked ok to me. I thought it was assigned to me and will deal with it.
[Paul]: Great. Now the list is down to 7
[Jim] You skipped over one of mine. API extensability. Still don't have a solution I'm really comfortable with. Last one from Phil Hunt is don't do any of these things. Say we can extent with subinterfaces, then may end up with lots of subintertaces. There are now 5 proposals. Should I just pick one and than adjust later if necessary? The only reason this is not pushed off is I want to provide a non-breaking path for API. For purposes of Phil.
[David K]: I have been reading the proposals. Can't change the API much.
[Paul]: Mary and I have had some conversation with Eclipse folks on API's. If we change the API, need to change the major version number.
[Mike]: Did they define what changing an API meant? Is it ok to add a method?
[Paul]: I believe it was breaking changes.
[Paul]: I would recommend you do nothing for now. Lets try to learn some more.
3) IPR/Release review status (1 item is checkintocvs), working on the wiki documentation for IPR review
[Mary]: Next topic. We have only one CQ that is not completely approved. It has a status of checkintocvs (svn). I cross checked everything in the dependencies.redistributable project and found 3 discrepancies, but they have all been resolved as of today. Thanks again to the committers who responded quickly to these questions. So now I am working on finalizing the wiki for the IP log for the IP review with Eclipse legal. I may have a few more questions for some people.
4) Positioning of 1.0, and setting expectations (IdAS API for example).
[Paul ]: The wiki and website are now less insider oriented. So we took a wack on an overview page. We do get a lot of relatively negative feedback on the site. Mostly about the navigation. We are working with Eclipse on a fix.
5) Planned Higgins regular F2F January 15-17 in Provo http://wiki.eclipse.org/Jan_15-17_Provo_F2F_Agenda
[Mary]: I humbly request that we change the dates of the meeting one more time to the week of January 28th. Some of the key presenters at the next Higgins F2F need to fly to Korea to present the Higgins data model to an international standards body (ITU-T). Can the company that so graciously offered to host the next F2F meeting accommodate the date change?
[Dale]: I'm not aware of any problems. Jim?
[Jim]: Should be easy.
[Mary]: Does this work for everyone? .....
[Mary]: Thank you.
[Drummond]: So the meeting will be January 29-31?
[Mary]: Yes. Jan 29th through 31st. I will send a special notice out to the dev list before the full notes are ready.
[Jim]: If we start the meeting on Tuesday, is there anyone interested in a ski day on Monday?
[Tony ]: Yes.
More talk about skiing on the 28th and maybe on the 1st.