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 --resend with consistent formatting
Title: [higgins-dev] Notes from September 11th Higgins Developers Call --resend with consistent formatting
Notes from the Higgins Developers call on Thursday, September 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
 
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    

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 <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

Attachment: ATT00001.c
Description: Binary data

Back to the top