Skip to main content
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[higgins-dev] Notes from September 11th Higgins Developers Call

Notes from the Higgins Developers call on Thursday, Sep 11

 

 

 Attendees

=========

* Duane Buss - Novell

* Tom Doman - Novell

* Andy Hodgkinson - Novell

* David Kuehr-Mclaren - IBM

* Drummond Reed - Cordance

* Bruce Rich - IBM

* Mary Ruddy - Meristic/SocialPhysics

* Paul Trevithick - Parity/SocialPhysics

* Brian Walker - Parity

* Tom Carroll - Parity 

 

  • Attendees

 

Time: noon EDT (1700 London; 1800 Vienna, Paris, Berlin)
Dial-in: 1-866-362-7064 / 892048#

Agenda

1. [Brian] We are now working on 1.1M4.  

  • Build is currently scheduled for September 19th.
  • See http://wiki.eclipse.org/Higgins_1.1M4
  • {Brian] Still tracking for the 19th.  I need to check with Mike on how he is doing with the WS-Trust and SOAP updates.  Wanted to give folks time to run through regression tests.  Based on progress, will decide if we stick with the 19th or need to push it out. There are still 57 items open on the M4 candidate list, so I will start pinging folks on those items.


2. [Brian & David] Internationalization    

  • [Brian] No changes for now.  In arm twisting mode to pin other component owners down.

3. [David] Automated testing

 

  • [David] Wasn’t asking for an update.  Know Mike was more about the build.  You can put tests into that but I don’t think it proscribes it.  My team had put together automated testing for context providers. Don’t know if anyone was looking at this from a wider framework.  Didn’t know if people were looking at things like TPTP.
  • [Brian] From past conversation, the general gist was we need to get to that point. The idea was to at least agree on the common build platform, so that we can leverage on top of that.  So that is why we were looking at Buckminster.  The Buckminster team is interested in moving in this direction.  Certainly the Buckminster team doesn’t have this capability today, but is interested in developing it.  We would like to leverage that.  I think there were some questions about TPTP…
  • [David] We ran into the issue as well. Needed to go to TPTP or not.  Couldn’t go independently.  Would the team be interested in seeing the automation framework? We’re done now.
  • [Brian] Great.  I thought we had a central wiki page for this.  I think it would be very valuable to share insight.
  • [David] Right.  Then we could share our comments.

 

 

 

4. [David] Documentation

 

  • [David]  We were looking at the IdAS documentation. That this is the API to create a customer context provider, and there is no real users guide.  And I’m wondering what the process is.
  • [Jim] Do you think it is possible to do that with Javadoc? Or do we need wiki pages?
  • [David] I think we need both.  There are holes in the Javadoc.  But then we also need a programmer’s guide written in English.  Internally, we have a document written in word, I need to check before donating intellectual property. Would that be useful from us?
  • [Paul] We don’t have any formal process. The wiki is what we try to update.  The wiki itself can’t support Word attachments.  But the Higgins website can do this.  From a process point of view there is nothing stopping us.  So for we have wiki pages.  I’m interested in what people think.  I find wiki fast and easy to update, but that is not necessarily what is best for the project.
  • [David] From a consumer point of view, how does that work with the wiki?
  • [Paul] It is just MediaWiki with a few twists.  There is nothing automated about it.  
  • [Paul] That is another thing we haven’t discussed.  Like Jim and others, what do people think?  We are uncharacteristic of Eclipse projects, using the wiki so much. I sometimes feel wikis are a way to get things started, but you reach a point where you want words documents somewhere, and start removing the wiki when have Word doc.
  • [Jim] For now, wiki pages would be the best way to go unless it becomes unmanageable for technical issues. I don’t know how possible it is to do internationalization. If we are thinking about a dozen or so wiki pages, all you need is a bugzilla account to update the wiki.  You don’t have to be a committer.  So to me that would be good. The short coming of the Javadoc can be pointed out and bugs written.  That can be written a little at a time.  I probably don’t have a week to just do that, but if people throw changes into a bug report, anyone can just throw that in.  Javadoc doesn’t lend itself to writing really good doc.  You can’t put enough in the code that turns into overview and detailed steps.  All you get is package overview and doc overview pages, one page per package.  To me, it seems like using the wiki to do the more human readable parts, then beef-up the Javadoc on the API’s, seems like the best route to go.  Can we attach pdfs to the wiki?
  • [Paul] I could be wrong, my recollection, is just image files.  I don’t believe you can attach a pdf file to the wiki, but I should double check.
  • [David] I recall attaching…
  • [Jim ] Some wiki allow that.
  • [Paul] It maybe an IP issue.
  • [Paul] You can put a web link to the website.  Some of the committers have the permissions to check in updated documentation.
  • [Jim] Or they can just be checked into the project.  Because it is in subversion, you can just link to the view SVN version.
  • [Paul] Right. That is an easier way to do that.
  • [??] We can post to the dev list.  It may just be quicker to just give you the Word doc.
  • [Paul] So definitely, would love to have it.  Any committer can put it into one of the projects. And put it into the wiki page.
  • [Davie] The other half is if we open a bug, then it may get a fix.  If we also included the updated version of the Javadoc, that would be best.
    [Jim] If someone has gone to the trouble of putting a suggested fix in there, I would feel more obligated to do it.
  • [David] I’m done with that topic.
  • [Paul] I noticed a note about a build script. That just came out of the blue.  I didn’t have time to look at it.

 

 

 

5. [Mary] Next Higgins F2F

  • Doodle for Boston as the next location 
  • http://www.doodle.ch/participation.html?pollId=gxzpfiuzdg4kveha - Please indicated your availability.  Still looking for room possibilities.
  • [Mary] We’re waiting to hear back from Mike about dates when he is available and has a room available.
  • [Paul] If IBM couldn’t find a room on a convenient date, Parity could volunteer a room at its lawyer’s offices.
  • [Mary]  Thanks for your offer of a  room.  Please update the doodle with the times you could attend the meeting if you have not already done so.

6. [Mary/Paul/Dale] DIDW/Interop update.

 

  • [Mary] The next item is the OSIS Interop. Paul was physically in the room for more of the time.
  • [Paul]  It turned into rolling presentations and tutorials.  Unlike other interops, there was not much testing going on. The room was mostly like a seminar.  IBM wasn’t there so there was no testing of their RCP selector.  Tom was there from Novell and I was there.  It was kind of a non event from the point of view of testing.  Turned into more of an education and outreach. Mike Jones of Microsoft was there.  One of the take-aways in the I4 matrix wiki was there have been a lot of new test entries.  There are a lot of tests that are not done because the test themselves are new.  One of the reasons that Microsoft has been putting a lot of energy into this is because the new TC has as part of its charter taking as input the test matrix of OSIS I4.  So Microsoft has been trying to make sure that it has some content to put into the OASIS standards process. That is an overview.
  • [Paul] I, with Parity, was there testing a new Parity selector based on the Adobe AIR selector with enhanced packaging of the installer.  We made the trade off we could test the new one, we call it Azigo, or the other.  We didn’t have enough resources to test both.  Needed to make a trade off similar to what Novell did with DigitalMe.

 

7. [Paul] Entity ID not an attribute discussion.

  • [Paul]  Someone put this on the agenda.  That is great. Tony this morning sent an email.  Before I respond to Tony and Raj, wanted to state the current proposal.  Usually the issue is terminology.  However, I would love to know what Tony means.
  • [Paul] Is there anyone on the call that speaks Tony English?
  • …..
    [Drummond} I’ve actually been composting a response during the call.   I completely agree with you Paul. Based on my XRI experience, unless you are very, very precise, and get your terminology spot on, these things can just spin forever.  So I’m trying to get this down to a set of precise questions about the model and the interface for interacting with the model.
  • [Paul] Great.
  • [Jim] I know in the past, there has been confusion about unique in context  vs. globally unique.  I never remember which side Tony came on.  I thought it was unique in context.
  • [Drummond] Yes.
  • [Jim] Maybe he is thinking there may be multiple unique identifiers, but the entityID may be something else.
  • [Dr] Exactly.  I’ve been down this tree before.  If we break this down into the individual decision about the model and the interface, we can get this down to yes and no, and it can be documented on that page.
  • [Paul] We do have wiki pages for all these things. If as you document this Drummond, you look at the wiki pages and see any inconsistencies, you can update the pages.
  • [Jim] Is there is a section of the wiki just for open items.
  • [Paul] Context data model 1.1 page open issues.   That would be great.  I think we are all for clarity. If the way we are defining it doesn’t work.  We need more precision.
  • [Drummond] I’m fairly confident with more precision, then whatever the decision is, it won’t need to be revisited.  We need people saying why we did this.  Probably need a page devoted to this issue on what would be the resolution of these issues.
  • [Paul] Actually, on the open issue page, there is a resolved issue.  That is where we were capturing it.
  • [Drummond] I will take the action item to write up this stuff, put it on the page and sent a response to the mailing list and reference that and work toward closing it.
  • [Paul]  Great.  You should also look at the open issues list.  Need update item from open to resolved.
  • [Drummond]  I will do item.
  • [Paul] That would be great.
  • [Paul] Guess we’re done with that item,
  • [Mary] Any other items?
  • [Drummond] A relative schedule for travel [For the Face-to-Face meeting] by next call.
  • [Mary] I will ping Mike.
  • [Drummond]If it makes any difference there will be a VRM architecture meeting in Boston.  Was going to be in Seattle the week of 15th of October.
  • I would be in favor of it being that week.  Don’t need to be in all of it.  Trying to kill both birds with one stone.
  • [Mary] So update the doodle as a comment.
  • [Mary] That would be great.
  • [Jim] If Mike is not able to get an IBM office, we have an office in Cambridge.  I haven’t asked, but seems doable.  Cambridge is the preferred location.
  • [Mary] Great.
  • [Paul] Anything else?
  • [Paul]  All set.
  • End

Back to the top