Difference between revisions of "JEE Status Meetings/2010-01-14"

From Eclipsepedia

Jump to: navigation, search
(New page: == Attendees == == Agenda == ==== Java EE 6 ==== :Java EE 6 model updates - see [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=299598 bug 299598] :EJB 3.1 bugs of note: [https://bugs....)
 
(Minutes)
 
(4 intermediate revisions by one user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
== Attendees  ==
 
== Attendees  ==
 +
* Carl Anderson
 +
* Chuck Bridgham
 +
* Kaloyan Raev
 +
* Jason Peterson
 +
* Angel Vera
 +
* Jason Sholl
  
 
== Agenda  ==
 
== Agenda  ==
Line 5: Line 11:
 
==== Java EE 6  ====
 
==== Java EE 6  ====
 
:Java EE 6 model updates - see [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=299598 bug 299598]
 
:Java EE 6 model updates - see [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=299598 bug 299598]
:EJB 3.1 bugs of note: [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=241667 241667] [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=241668 241668]
+
:EJB 3.1 bugs of note: [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=241667 241667] [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=241668 241668] [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=299086 299086]
 +
:[http://wiki.glassfish.java.net/Wiki.jsp?page=Javaee6wizards Glassfish Java EE 6 wizards]
 
:[http://www.eclipse.org/projects/project-plan.php?projectid=webtools.jeetools Java EE Tools plan]
 
:[http://www.eclipse.org/projects/project-plan.php?projectid=webtools.jeetools Java EE Tools plan]
 
:[http://www.eclipse.org/projects/project-plan.php?projectid=webtools.ejbtools EJB Tools plan]
 
:[http://www.eclipse.org/projects/project-plan.php?projectid=webtools.ejbtools EJB Tools plan]
Line 12: Line 19:
 
==== Virtual Component  ====
 
==== Virtual Component  ====
 
:Migrate Java EE Deployables to use the new VCF traversal logic [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=297653 297653]
 
:Migrate Java EE Deployables to use the new VCF traversal logic [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=297653 297653]
:Make export operation pull from wst.server APIs to reduce redundancy and inconsistancy [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=265798 265798]
+
:Make export operation pull from wst.server APIs to reduce redundancy and inconsistancy [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=265798 265798] - Committed to WTP 3.2 M4
:Allow simple but extensible Virtual Component Framework traversal  [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=296764 296764]
+
:Allow simple but extensible Virtual Component Framework traversal  [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=296764 296764] - Committed to WTP 3.2 M5
  
 
==== Flexible Modules  ====
 
==== Flexible Modules  ====
Line 24: Line 31:
  
 
== Minutes ==
 
== Minutes ==
 +
 +
Carl: I sent a note to wtp-dev about bug 299598.  In the EJB 3.1 bugs of note section, I added bug 299086.
 +
 +
Kaloyan:  I started working on 241667 and 241668.  We are waiting to hear back from the Glassfish team on all three of these bugs - we will wait a week before attempting to do these ourselves.
 +
 +
Chuck:  Do we have any updates on when Glassfish will contribute?
 +
 +
Kaloyan:  No.
 +
 +
Carl:  I added the link Rochelle sent me for the Glassfish Java EE 6 wizards
 +
 +
Kaloyan:  It all looks good to me.
 +
 +
Carl:  Chuck, you said last week that you were going to take a pass through the plan and target things- did you get a chance?
 +
 +
Chuck: No.  We are looking through the list and working towards targets.  We should know in a day or two.  Another thing the Glassfish team had mentioned were the Servlet 3.0 elements- that is currently deferred, but if they contribute, we will put in a milestone for it.
 +
 +
Kaloyan:  What about the deployment descriptor trees?  Are they going to appear in the Project Explorer out of the box?
 +
 +
Carl:  That hasn't been done yet.
 +
 +
Chuck:  I thought the item providers worked on the existing models already.
 +
 +
Kaloyan:  When I did the smoke test recently, I didn't see that for Java EE 6.  I will open a bug about this, then.
 +
 +
Carl: Anything else on Java EE 6?
 +
 +
Kaloyan:  There is bug 252618 - we weren't sure when Java EE 6 would come out.  We wanted to put in an extension point or something so adopters can contribute when Java EE 6 is released.
 +
 +
Chuck:  What kind of extensibility are you looking for?
 +
 +
Kaloyan:  Extensibility such as what is run when the new facet is added.  That way adopters can do the rest of the Java EE 6 functionality in their product.  Then, when Java EE 6 was postponed again, we decommitted this enhancement.
 +
 +
Chuck:  In terms of adding additiona operations on finish - that is already there.  In terms of replacing the operation that is run, that would be a lot of work.
 +
 +
Kaloyan:  I was meaning moreso that we rework this bug such that, now that Java EE 6 is there, we can use this to get the Java EE 6 elements all working correctly.
 +
 +
Chuck:  So what you mean is going through each of the wizards, one by one, and make sure they work?
 +
 +
Kaloyan:  Yes.  For example, EJB 3.1 is very similar to EJB 3.0.  But for Servlet 3.0, it would be adding the generation of annotations into the servlet code.
 +
 +
Chuck:  Can we either add more detail to this bugzilla, or else open separate ones?
 +
 +
Kaloyan:  Yes.  I will do that.
 +
 +
Angel:  I sent Jason Peterson a note about the test results after I apply the patch.
 +
 +
Jason P:  If you apply the entire patch with his test case updates, then the JUnits pass.  The question is, are you OK with his JUnit updates?
 +
 +
Angel:  I will look at the changes this week, and see if we can get these in this week.
 +
 +
Chuck:  Can you give us a quick status?
 +
 +
Jason P:  The deploy code is complete.  The model is done- that code is all committed.  I am currently working on the export code- getting it to use the new model.
 +
 +
Chuck:  Do we want to try to rush this in, so that it is smoke tested today?
 +
 +
Jason P:  That's what Rob wanted.
 +
 +
Chuck:  I tend to agree.  Angel - can you rush this review?  That way we have people pounding on it for a week.
 +
 +
Carl:  I worry about another major change.  We already have the Java Facet changes this week.
 +
 +
Angel:  I think getting it in would be good.  If we find a problem, we can always yank it out next week.
 +
 +
Jason P:  The biggest change is the children count vs. members count - he updated the counts, and he changed the id references from display name.
 +
 +
Angel:  The change of id is what worries me moreso than the counts.
 +
 +
Jason P:  I only remember that hitting one test case.
 +
 +
Chuck:  Angel, if there is any way you can review those before the WTP meeting, we can decide about the respin then.
 +
 +
Angel:  One of the server tools enhancements is already closed.  I still have to review the other ones.

Latest revision as of 07:30, 14 January 2010

Contents

[edit] Attendees

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

[edit] Agenda

[edit] Java EE 6

Java EE 6 model updates - see bug 299598
EJB 3.1 bugs of note: 241667 241668 299086
Glassfish Java EE 6 wizards
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] Virtual Component

Migrate Java EE Deployables to use the new VCF traversal logic 297653
Make export operation pull from wst.server APIs to reduce redundancy and inconsistancy 265798 - Committed to WTP 3.2 M4
Allow simple but extensible Virtual Component Framework traversal 296764 - Committed to WTP 3.2 M5

[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

[edit] Minutes

Carl: I sent a note to wtp-dev about bug 299598. In the EJB 3.1 bugs of note section, I added bug 299086.

Kaloyan: I started working on 241667 and 241668. We are waiting to hear back from the Glassfish team on all three of these bugs - we will wait a week before attempting to do these ourselves.

Chuck: Do we have any updates on when Glassfish will contribute?

Kaloyan: No.

Carl: I added the link Rochelle sent me for the Glassfish Java EE 6 wizards

Kaloyan: It all looks good to me.

Carl: Chuck, you said last week that you were going to take a pass through the plan and target things- did you get a chance?

Chuck: No. We are looking through the list and working towards targets. We should know in a day or two. Another thing the Glassfish team had mentioned were the Servlet 3.0 elements- that is currently deferred, but if they contribute, we will put in a milestone for it.

Kaloyan: What about the deployment descriptor trees? Are they going to appear in the Project Explorer out of the box?

Carl: That hasn't been done yet.

Chuck: I thought the item providers worked on the existing models already.

Kaloyan: When I did the smoke test recently, I didn't see that for Java EE 6. I will open a bug about this, then.

Carl: Anything else on Java EE 6?

Kaloyan: There is bug 252618 - we weren't sure when Java EE 6 would come out. We wanted to put in an extension point or something so adopters can contribute when Java EE 6 is released.

Chuck: What kind of extensibility are you looking for?

Kaloyan: Extensibility such as what is run when the new facet is added. That way adopters can do the rest of the Java EE 6 functionality in their product. Then, when Java EE 6 was postponed again, we decommitted this enhancement.

Chuck: In terms of adding additiona operations on finish - that is already there. In terms of replacing the operation that is run, that would be a lot of work.

Kaloyan: I was meaning moreso that we rework this bug such that, now that Java EE 6 is there, we can use this to get the Java EE 6 elements all working correctly.

Chuck: So what you mean is going through each of the wizards, one by one, and make sure they work?

Kaloyan: Yes. For example, EJB 3.1 is very similar to EJB 3.0. But for Servlet 3.0, it would be adding the generation of annotations into the servlet code.

Chuck: Can we either add more detail to this bugzilla, or else open separate ones?

Kaloyan: Yes. I will do that.

Angel: I sent Jason Peterson a note about the test results after I apply the patch.

Jason P: If you apply the entire patch with his test case updates, then the JUnits pass. The question is, are you OK with his JUnit updates?

Angel: I will look at the changes this week, and see if we can get these in this week.

Chuck: Can you give us a quick status?

Jason P: The deploy code is complete. The model is done- that code is all committed. I am currently working on the export code- getting it to use the new model.

Chuck: Do we want to try to rush this in, so that it is smoke tested today?

Jason P: That's what Rob wanted.

Chuck: I tend to agree. Angel - can you rush this review? That way we have people pounding on it for a week.

Carl: I worry about another major change. We already have the Java Facet changes this week.

Angel: I think getting it in would be good. If we find a problem, we can always yank it out next week.

Jason P: The biggest change is the children count vs. members count - he updated the counts, and he changed the id references from display name.

Angel: The change of id is what worries me moreso than the counts.

Jason P: I only remember that hitting one test case.

Chuck: Angel, if there is any way you can review those before the WTP meeting, we can decide about the respin then.

Angel: One of the server tools enhancements is already closed. I still have to review the other ones.