blob: 5886d1c11ce39cc2356b18ceb930296a24b96878 [file] [log] [blame]
2/24 meeting
David Williams, IBM
Ted Bashor, BEA
Chuck Bridgham, IBM
Naci Dai, Eteration
Kevin Haaland, IBM
notes provided by David Williams
The purpose of this call was to introduce new members, discuss need for
this group, and is to discuss objectives and our plan for next several months.
The "formal" statement of our objectives is in our WTP Charter. " The Architecture Group is formed at the
discretion of the PMC. The Architecture Group is responsible for development, articulation and maintenance of
the Project Architecture, as well as for providing an explicit description of the architecture and
communicating this description to all members of the Project, and for releasing it as part of the project
deliverables. The Architecture Group will accomplish its objectives by working closely with the development
teams and the PMC. "
The main work deliverable from the group is an over-all architecture document
It was generally agreed there is a need for Architecture Group, to facilitate communication, if nothing else. We
agreed to have regular phone calls, every other week, the objectives of which would be to
1.track architecture and design issues and make sure the right people were working on them -- often cross
component, or even cross project teams, for example, the common browser, the extensible navigator, common
undo manager. There was a "brainstorm" list of issues . Chuck suggested these be opened as bugzillas, to
help track. Kevin suggested we as a group prioritize the list, and post a "top ten" list on web to aide
getting community feedback. [I should add, these would not be the same as "requirements", but obviously
2.We thought it'd be helpful to have some presentations by component leads to Architecture group, to give quick
overviews of their designs and APIs.
3. To some extent, our role is to make suggestions and give advice, but a little "police-ing" will undoubtedly be
part of it (e.g. "you should have one plugin, instead of 5", etc).
The following examples were "off the top of David's head" ideas of possible issues to track and focus on.
1. Two (or three) "command" frameworks in WTP ... which is best? Is the Eclipse base new "command" framework a
suitable replacement for all of ours?
2. There's an "EditModel" and "ResourceSet" currently in VE, used by WTP, but rightfully belongs in EMF. I'm
wondering if the bases new "Logical Resources" substitutes for this?
3. There's a new Common Undo Manager in base Eclipse ... we in WTP need to see if we can move to this, in place of
our current common undo manager (that comes from a utility package in EMF). Is there a need for EMF to move too?
4. Should our WTP Extensible Navigator be promoted to WTP API? Work is slated for Eclipse 3.2 to provide in same
functionality in base, but will it be the same? Is the timing right?
Should it be renamed with 'friend' in package (not quite public, but more than internal)? In anticipation of
changing in 1.1?
5. URI Resolver -- how compares with base? How compares with EMF's URI Converter?
6. XMLCatalog -- need to confirm its consistent with OASIS specs, XML/DOM3?
7. Tabbed Property Sheet? Is there a reason for this to be in base?
8. Browser framework should be moved to base -- work in progress (but everyone's overloaded).
9. Internet proxy settings should be moved to base, since effects VM properties (and danger of conflicts if not
just one provided at a low level).
10. Validation framework is important and useful, but needs to reconcile with similar function in TPTP, move
to base in future version?
11. Do we have or need a consistent logging strategy?
12. Data collection strategy? (e.g. most frequently used actions, etc).
13. The flexible project model needs lots of review and feedback.
14. Need more consolidation of plugins ... some are only used by one or two other plugin, so why not combined?
The main action for next meeting was for members of Architecture group to exchange "issues lists" and we'd
pick top ten priorities for release 1 and solicit community feedback.
Oh, and most important, we agreed to have future meeting as 12 noon Eastern time, instead of 9 AM, except on
Friday's, so Ted wouldn't have to get up at 6 AM, and Naci could still join in at 7 PM. :)