Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between revisions of "JEE Status Meetings/2010-04-08"

(New page: == Attendees == == Agenda == ==== Java EE 6 ==== :What can we get done in M7? :List of [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&...)
 
(Flexible Modules)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
== Attendees  ==
 
== Attendees  ==
 +
* Carl Anderson
 +
* Rob Stryker
 +
* Kaloyan Raev
 +
* Chuck Bridgham
 +
* Jason Sholl
 +
* Angel Vera
  
 
== Agenda  ==
 
== Agenda  ==
Line 5: Line 11:
 
==== Java EE 6  ====
 
==== Java EE 6  ====
 
:What can we get done in M7?
 
:What can we get done in M7?
 +
:What kind of support is available for [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=308122#c4 Servlet 3.0]?
 
:List of [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&classification=WebTools&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=JavaEE6&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0= Java EE 6] bugs that need to be rolled into the WTP 3.2 plan
 
:List of [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&classification=WebTools&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=JavaEE6&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0= Java EE 6] bugs that need to be rolled into the WTP 3.2 plan
 
:[http://wiki.glassfish.java.net/Wiki.jsp?page=Javaee6wizards Glassfish Java EE 6 wizards]
 
:[http://wiki.glassfish.java.net/Wiki.jsp?page=Javaee6wizards Glassfish Java EE 6 wizards]
Line 12: Line 19:
 
==== Flexible Modules  ====
 
==== Flexible Modules  ====
  
:[http://bugs.eclipse.org/290041 Replace Existing JavaEE Dependencies page] - bugs of note: [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=303600 303600] [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=303706 303706] [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=304654 304654]
+
:[http://bugs.eclipse.org/290041 Replace Existing JavaEE Dependencies page]
 
:Bugs marked with the [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&classification=WebTools&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=Flexible+Modules&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0= Flexible Modules] whiteboard entry
 
:Bugs marked with the [https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&classification=WebTools&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=Flexible+Modules&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0= Flexible Modules] whiteboard entry
  
Line 31: Line 38:
  
 
== Minutes ==
 
== Minutes ==
 +
Carl:  Kaloyan, I understand this time doesn't work the best for you.
 +
 +
Kaloyan:  Yes, I have a conflict for now.  It would work better for me if we move it later.
 +
 +
Discussion about some other possible meeting times- we will work on rescheduling it via e-mail.
 +
 +
Carl:  Bug 305306 - Rob, is it better to pull that update for now?
 +
 +
Rob:  I think that it is more likely that we should pull that update.  I just put another patch onto 305306.  It includes another unit test.
 +
 +
Carl:  I will work with you to get that properly attached.
 +
 +
Chuck:  We've still got a few bugs to get in.  Bug 308431 adds in a hyperlink to open up the EAR's Deployment Assembly page.
 +
 +
Rob:  Sounds simple enough.
 +
 +
Chuck:  One thing I did change was the ID of the property sheet.  Currently, its name is J2EEDependenciesPage, I am changing it to DeploymentAssemblyPage
 +
 +
Rob:  That should be fine.
 +
 +
Chuck:  The other one- I just opened up 308490 - I didn't realize that would be a reference that is always there, instead of just put there when needed.
 +
 +
Rob:  This doesn't always get returned from the component.  It only gets returned when the displayable references are returned.
 +
 +
Chuck:  It goes against the other reference types- in Add, you can add one of these.  Should it show up automatically?
 +
 +
Rob:  I couldn't think of a better place to put it.
 +
 +
Chuck:  But should it be there by default?  When a user does an add, they can add one of those.
 +
 +
Rob:  This reference isn't persisted at all - how do we know when to show it?
 +
 +
Chuck:  What I think we should do is not show it by default, and then detect if it is needed, and if so, display it.  If they wanted to add a brand new one, then go to Add.
 +
 +
Rob:  I can maybe make that work.
 +
 +
Jason:  We need to do some work in case of remove.  The remove action would just do the edit action, and then just uncheck everything.
 +
 +
Rob:  Wouldn't you rather edit, uncheck everything, and then it just goes away?  Remove should be disabled for derived references.
 +
 +
Jason:  We also want to make a way to add a container- it would be just like a variable.
 +
 +
Rob:  Please open a bugzilla about that.  I will get right on it.
 +
 +
Carl:  Angel wanted to discuss bug 308122 - it really comes down to bug 252616
 +
 +
Kaloyan:  252616 fell out of plan for 3.1 with the rest of Java EE 6
 +
 +
Carl:  Can you update that bug for WTP 3.2?
 +
 +
Kaloyan:  I will do that.
 +
 +
Chuck:  Any news from Ludo?
 +
 +
Carl:  I sent him an e-mail at the beginning of the meeting.  He just responded.  Still trying to get the wizards through their legal dept.
 +
 +
Chuck:  I think we need to be looking moreso at a September time frame.  We can't just throw in a major change at the last minute - it is getting too late for this.
 +
 +
Rob:  There was something the Jasons were working on - the support for IVirtualReference.
 +
 +
Jason:  Your suggested change is moreso an implementation change.
 +
 +
Rob:  I was also thinking that the type should be moreso on the component, not the reference.  Then we wouldn't need any bit-wise stuff.
 +
 +
Jason:  We had grander plans, but had to scale that back, due to the lateness of the release.
 +
 +
Rob:  I think that what type, and maybe some flags, are more appropriate on the component, than on the reference.
 +
 +
Jason explained how it all ended up on the reference.
 +
 +
Rob:  Don't forget, the component already has a type.
 +
 +
Jason:  But there's no way to get to that information.  I'll take a look at Rob's suggestions.
 +
 +
Carl:  Next on the agenda is flexible modules support.  Are we done replacing the Java EE Module Dependencies page?
 +
 +
Chuck:  I think so.  We just need to be bug fixing this week.
 +
 +
Rob:  And clean up some strings on the page.
 +
 +
Carl:  Other topics - Angel?
 +
 +
Angel:  We need to enable the UI for 293742.  I don't think I can get it done in M7, so it is probably out of 3.2.  For 286699, that is more of a defect- there is still a chance on that one.

Latest revision as of 13:58, 8 April 2010

Attendees

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

Agenda

Java EE 6

What can we get done in M7?
What kind of support is available for Servlet 3.0?
List of Java EE 6 bugs that need to be rolled into the WTP 3.2 plan
Glassfish Java EE 6 wizards
Java EE Tools plan
EJB Tools plan

Flexible Modules

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

Other topics

Modules always synchronized 304673 - any update?

Server Tools Enhancements:

293742 Discussion continue. Not in plan, yet
286699 Need to review. Not in plan, yet

Minutes

Carl: Kaloyan, I understand this time doesn't work the best for you.

Kaloyan: Yes, I have a conflict for now. It would work better for me if we move it later.

Discussion about some other possible meeting times- we will work on rescheduling it via e-mail.

Carl: Bug 305306 - Rob, is it better to pull that update for now?

Rob: I think that it is more likely that we should pull that update. I just put another patch onto 305306. It includes another unit test.

Carl: I will work with you to get that properly attached.

Chuck: We've still got a few bugs to get in. Bug 308431 adds in a hyperlink to open up the EAR's Deployment Assembly page.

Rob: Sounds simple enough.

Chuck: One thing I did change was the ID of the property sheet. Currently, its name is J2EEDependenciesPage, I am changing it to DeploymentAssemblyPage

Rob: That should be fine.

Chuck: The other one- I just opened up 308490 - I didn't realize that would be a reference that is always there, instead of just put there when needed.

Rob: This doesn't always get returned from the component. It only gets returned when the displayable references are returned.

Chuck: It goes against the other reference types- in Add, you can add one of these. Should it show up automatically?

Rob: I couldn't think of a better place to put it.

Chuck: But should it be there by default? When a user does an add, they can add one of those.

Rob: This reference isn't persisted at all - how do we know when to show it?

Chuck: What I think we should do is not show it by default, and then detect if it is needed, and if so, display it. If they wanted to add a brand new one, then go to Add.

Rob: I can maybe make that work.

Jason: We need to do some work in case of remove. The remove action would just do the edit action, and then just uncheck everything.

Rob: Wouldn't you rather edit, uncheck everything, and then it just goes away? Remove should be disabled for derived references.

Jason: We also want to make a way to add a container- it would be just like a variable.

Rob: Please open a bugzilla about that. I will get right on it.

Carl: Angel wanted to discuss bug 308122 - it really comes down to bug 252616

Kaloyan: 252616 fell out of plan for 3.1 with the rest of Java EE 6

Carl: Can you update that bug for WTP 3.2?

Kaloyan: I will do that.

Chuck: Any news from Ludo?

Carl: I sent him an e-mail at the beginning of the meeting. He just responded. Still trying to get the wizards through their legal dept.

Chuck: I think we need to be looking moreso at a September time frame. We can't just throw in a major change at the last minute - it is getting too late for this.

Rob: There was something the Jasons were working on - the support for IVirtualReference.

Jason: Your suggested change is moreso an implementation change.

Rob: I was also thinking that the type should be moreso on the component, not the reference. Then we wouldn't need any bit-wise stuff.

Jason: We had grander plans, but had to scale that back, due to the lateness of the release.

Rob: I think that what type, and maybe some flags, are more appropriate on the component, than on the reference.

Jason explained how it all ended up on the reference.

Rob: Don't forget, the component already has a type.

Jason: But there's no way to get to that information. I'll take a look at Rob's suggestions.

Carl: Next on the agenda is flexible modules support. Are we done replacing the Java EE Module Dependencies page?

Chuck: I think so. We just need to be bug fixing this week.

Rob: And clean up some strings on the page.

Carl: Other topics - Angel?

Angel: We need to enable the UI for 293742. I don't think I can get it done in M7, so it is probably out of 3.2. For 286699, that is more of a defect- there is still a chance on that one.