Notice: this Wiki will be going read only early in 2024 and edits will no longer be possible. Please see: https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/helpdesk/-/wikis/Wiki-shutdown-plan for the plan.
Difference between revisions of "JEE Status Meetings/2010-04-08"
(→Java EE 6) |
(→Flexible Modules) |
||
| (2 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 13: | Line 19: | ||
==== Flexible Modules ==== | ==== Flexible Modules ==== | ||
| − | :[http://bugs.eclipse.org/290041 Replace Existing JavaEE Dependencies page | + | :[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 32: | 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 14:58, 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.