Difference between revisions of "JEE Status Meetings/2009-12-03"

From Eclipsepedia

Jump to: navigation, search
(New page: == Attendees == == Agenda == ==== Java EE 6 ==== :[http://www.eclipse.org/projects/project-plan.php?projectid=webtools.jeetools Java EE Tools plan] :[http://www.eclipse.org/projects/p...)
 
(Minutes)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by one user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
== Attendees  ==
 
== Attendees  ==
 +
* Carl Anderson
 +
* Chuck Bridgham
 +
* Jason Sholl
 +
* Jason Peterson
 +
* Rob Stryker
 +
* Kaloyan Raev
 +
* Angel Vera
  
 
== Agenda  ==
 
== Agenda  ==
Line 19: Line 26:
  
 
== Minutes ==
 
== Minutes ==
 +
Carl:  First, the Java EE 6 plan - Chuck do you want to talk about what we've accomplished, and what's left?
 +
 +
Chuck:  There are things that are proposed, but not committed- we need to go through the plan again.
 +
 +
Kaloyan: Agreed
 +
 +
Chuck:  Carl - the models were supposedly done in M3, but did you do more for M4?
 +
 +
Carl:  Mostly the model factory for Connector- bug [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=295946 295946].  Also, the LabelProvider for Connector is currently broken.  Kaloyan- your team has maintained that in the past, can that be fixed for M5?
 +
 +
Kaloyan:  In M5, I am not sure we can help a lot.  We are closing down a release cycle.  Perhaps in M6.
 +
 +
Carl:  OK, going down to the flexible modules- Rob, Chuck?
 +
 +
Rob:  The breakage today- I changed the module's name to be the deploy name, for display purposes.  The unit tests are checking that and expecting the full name.  I think the unit tests were being overly protective.
 +
 +
Angel:  Need to check w/ Tim about that.
 +
 +
Rob:  (Explained the basis behind the change.
 +
 +
Angel:  Can you put that into a note or a bug?
 +
 +
Rob:  Yes. (Another lengthy explanation of the problem)  Admittedly, the suffix change might cause breakage.  But as long as we don't change the module IDs, we should be fine.
 +
 +
Chuck: Let's hold this off for M5.  Obviously this is a bad time for breakage.
 +
 +
Rob:  Yep, that's fine.
 +
 +
Chuck:  We still have a few cases to work on for the Module Assembly.
 +
 +
Rob & Chuck went through the remaining to-dos for the Module Assembly - see bug [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=290041#c5 290041]
 +
 +
Chuck:  Rob, are you working with Jason on the single root stuff?  It seems like both of you are working in the same area.
 +
 +
Jason:  Rob and I had a discussion about the VirtualComponent changes on Tuesday, and Jason P. and I discussed it on Wednesday.
 +
 +
Rob:  I will work on this some more, and hope to have a patch ready tonight.
 +
 +
Carl:  Should we have a separate agenda item for this for the calls?
 +
 +
Chuck & Jason: Yes.
 +
 +
Jason:  I was hoping to target this for M5.
 +
 +
Rob:  I was planning to write tests first to make sure things work, and then as we add pieces, we re-run the tests to make sure nothing broke.
 +
 +
Jason:  And the deployed name stuff runs right into this, too.
 +
 +
Chuck:  M5 is pretty agressive.
 +
 +
Jason P:  I definitely think we should look at using the IArchive code for the Output Container piece.  I would like to work w/ you on the output container and the single root.
 +
 +
Carl:  Kaloyan, do you want me to run the smoke test today?
 +
 +
Kaloyan:  If it is not too late for you.  Otherwise let Dimitar know, and we can do it on our Friday.

Latest revision as of 12:47, 3 December 2009

Contents

[edit] Attendees

  • Carl Anderson
  • Chuck Bridgham
  • Jason Sholl
  • Jason Peterson
  • Rob Stryker
  • Kaloyan Raev
  • Angel Vera

[edit] Agenda

[edit] Java EE 6

Java EE Tools plan
EJB Tools plan
List of Java EE 6 bugs that need to be rolled into the WTP 3.2 plan

[edit] Flexible Modules

Replace Existing JavaEE Dependencies page
Bugs marked with the Flexible Modules whiteboard entry

[edit] Other topics

Server Tools Enhancements: 293742 292194 291833 286699 282483

Make export operation pull from wst.server APIs to reduce redundancy and inconsistancy 265798

[edit] Minutes

Carl: First, the Java EE 6 plan - Chuck do you want to talk about what we've accomplished, and what's left?

Chuck: There are things that are proposed, but not committed- we need to go through the plan again.

Kaloyan: Agreed

Chuck: Carl - the models were supposedly done in M3, but did you do more for M4?

Carl: Mostly the model factory for Connector- bug 295946. Also, the LabelProvider for Connector is currently broken. Kaloyan- your team has maintained that in the past, can that be fixed for M5?

Kaloyan: In M5, I am not sure we can help a lot. We are closing down a release cycle. Perhaps in M6.

Carl: OK, going down to the flexible modules- Rob, Chuck?

Rob: The breakage today- I changed the module's name to be the deploy name, for display purposes. The unit tests are checking that and expecting the full name. I think the unit tests were being overly protective.

Angel: Need to check w/ Tim about that.

Rob: (Explained the basis behind the change.

Angel: Can you put that into a note or a bug?

Rob: Yes. (Another lengthy explanation of the problem) Admittedly, the suffix change might cause breakage. But as long as we don't change the module IDs, we should be fine.

Chuck: Let's hold this off for M5. Obviously this is a bad time for breakage.

Rob: Yep, that's fine.

Chuck: We still have a few cases to work on for the Module Assembly.

Rob & Chuck went through the remaining to-dos for the Module Assembly - see bug 290041

Chuck: Rob, are you working with Jason on the single root stuff? It seems like both of you are working in the same area.

Jason: Rob and I had a discussion about the VirtualComponent changes on Tuesday, and Jason P. and I discussed it on Wednesday.

Rob: I will work on this some more, and hope to have a patch ready tonight.

Carl: Should we have a separate agenda item for this for the calls?

Chuck & Jason: Yes.

Jason: I was hoping to target this for M5.

Rob: I was planning to write tests first to make sure things work, and then as we add pieces, we re-run the tests to make sure nothing broke.

Jason: And the deployed name stuff runs right into this, too.

Chuck: M5 is pretty agressive.

Jason P: I definitely think we should look at using the IArchive code for the Output Container piece. I would like to work w/ you on the output container and the single root.

Carl: Kaloyan, do you want me to run the smoke test today?

Kaloyan: If it is not too late for you. Otherwise let Dimitar know, and we can do it on our Friday.