| RE: [sequoyah-dev] Re: [mobile-iwg] Pulsar SDK discovery work for Helios |
|
Hi Guys, I’m pretty sure that the development would be coming from
member companies, so the IP reviews should be less troublesome than if the code
were coming from an unknown source. In any case, let’s discuss with
Sharon to see what our options would be if we need something expedited. I’m
pretty sure by next week we should be able to come to an agreement. On the metadata, it would be good to get confirmation that it
will be backward compatible with the current model. I know many assume that it
will be, but it would be good to remove any doubt there so SDK vendors can plan
on adjusting if need be. Regards, Ronnie From:
mobile-iwg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:mobile-iwg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of ext Christian Kurzke Ronnie, Eric, My biggest concern in this is the fact that the code would
have to pass the Eclipse Foundation Contribution process, which includes the IP
review and code scanning. I recommend to contact Sharon and see if there is any chance
this can get reviewed as a contribution so late in the game. While i agree that it would be very nice to have the Mylin
integration for Helios, i am very concerned that this may introduce a huge risk
of not hitting the milestone at all. As an alternative, I would suggest to participate in the
Helios release with a minimum risk (aka plain P2 update) code, and then add the
Mylin code at the first Maintainance Release. One concern i have for this is also the change of the SDK provider
meta-data. Marcel, can you please explain next week at the meeting how
your proposed code impacts the P2 Meta Data of the SDK providers? I hope those changes are minimal (or none at all), which
would be another reason for not rushing the Mylin code into the Helios release. -Christian On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 10:30 AM, <Ronnie.King@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Hi Eric, Yes, I will be at the meeting on Wed. I agree
that we should plan on getting an agreement on what exactly we believe can be
accomplished in the time that we have remaining for Helios and hopefully get
commitments from interested parties as to what areas we can expect support on.
This is very similar to what happened with Galileo last year, we had to limit
what was done due to time, but we were able to pull in the targets with support
from everyone who participated in the project. And yes, I fully understand the
additional areas that need to be factored in, documentation, SDK vendor
coordination, testing, IP review, etc, which is exactly why we need to make
sure that there is a strong push to do everything out in the open so we can
solicit help where needed. On the feature risk, I can certainly
appreciate the concern there but I do think that we should make a concerted
effort to align with the platform changes that will be supported in Helios,
meaning the discovery UI updates. From my understanding the integration of
these api’s to P2 are complete, which means we should be able to align
the SDK view with the new model. This will of course also require changes to
the metadata for including icons, data, etc, but this should be capable of
completing in the timeframe if we get commitments from the others on the
project. Regards, Ronnie From: mobile-iwg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:mobile-iwg-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of ext ERIC CLONINGER
Hi
Ronnie, On
Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 2:08 PM, <Ronnie.King@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Hi, We(Nokia) will be providing development
effort for getting the discovery UI model hooked up to the Pulsar SDK view, so what
I would suggest is that we approach this in a collaborative way and put a plan
together on how we can get this support in by Apr30 (M7). From our team, David
Dubrow is researching/tracking the latest changes in the Equinox project, and
will be looking into hooking up the discovery UI model. Here’s a quick pass at the items
that we see are needed to be done: - Confirmation of metadata model changes
and or compatibility : David/Nokia - Integration of latest changes to the P2
api updates from M6 : Daniel(?)/Motorola - Design discussion on SDK view changes
needed for discovery UI update, what additional extensions may be needed for
SDK vendors : David, Daniel, ?/Nokia, Mot, any others? - Other changes that may be needed for the
engine : David/Nokia, other? - Changes required for metadata generator
tool : ? - Test cycles with update servers :
?(All?) It would be good to get your feedback on
these, or if you have additional items to add. Regards, Ronnie From: sequoyah-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:sequoyah-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of ext Marcel Gorri Hi
Ronnie, unfortunately,
we didn't have time to plan carefully what is going to be the Mylyn based
solution due our Helios integration deadlines, that's why we went for a P2
based solution. As soon as we have time to explore the Mylyn solution, we'll
provide you more details. Tks, Marcel On
Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 4:11 PM, <Ronnie.King@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: Marcel,
Hi Eric, Hi David, Just
wondering if this work is being based on the the current work of moving the
Mylyn discovery UI and some of its metadata into p2 for Helios or strictly on
Mylyn? On
3/10/10 11:10 AM, "ext ERIC CLONINGER" <dcp874@xxxxxxxxxxxx <http://dcp874@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote: Hello Pulsar members,
|