Skip to main content

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.

Jump to: navigation, search

Difference between revisions of "TCF/Meetings/March 12 2009 Round Table"

< TCF‎ | Meetings
 
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 12: Line 12:
 
== Attendees ==
 
== Attendees ==
 
* See the [http://www.doodle.com/gma4ewgfdngw4gga Doodle Attendance Poll] for the meeting
 
* See the [http://www.doodle.com/gma4ewgfdngw4gga Doodle Attendance Poll] for the meeting
 +
 +
* '''Wind River''' - Martin Oberhuber, Brian Nettleton, Doug Gaff, Doug Schaefer, Pawel Piech, Eugene Tarassov, Felix Burton
 +
* '''MontaVista''' - Anna Dushistova, Joe Green, Yufen Kuo
 +
* '''Freescale''' - Ed Swarthout, Daniel Friederich
 +
* '''Anyware Technologies''' - Gaetan Morice
 +
* '''Nokia''' - Ken Ryall
 +
* '''ST-Ericsson''' - Henrik Wallinder
 +
* '''Eldorado/TmL''' - Fabio Fantato
  
 
== Agenda/Notes ==
 
== Agenda/Notes ==
 
'''Feel free to edit, but <font color="red">not during the meeting</font>'''
 
'''Feel free to edit, but <font color="red">not during the meeting</font>'''
 
 
* See the [http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/dsdp-tm-dev/msg02245.html original invitation]
 
* See the [http://dev.eclipse.org/mhonarc/lists/dsdp-tm-dev/msg02245.html original invitation]
* How is TCF being used today?
+
 
* Who is interested in contributing (and what)?
+
=== How is TCF being used today? ===
* How does the project infrastructure work for everybody?
+
* Brian, Windriver - using TCF for a '''remote test product''' (customer specific at this time)
** Separate mailing list; bugzilla; do we need anything else?
+
* Joe, Montavista - not currently using TCF, but interested in standardizing on TCF for target communications
*** Releng process / builder, and downloadable artifacts
+
* Gaetan, Anyware - using their own (branched) implementation in a product for target communications - some patches on bugzilla
** Status information for TCF protocol (what's frozen, what's work-in-progress)
+
** Moved in a slightly different direction since, because there is no agent on the target - need to merge proprietarty protocol
** Version information for TCF protocol description
+
** TCF not extendable enough at the moment for proprietary extensions
* How do the TCF webpages work? What could be improved?
+
** Moving in the right direction with integration of patches
** Do newcomers find the necessary information? What's missing?
+
** Looking at OSGi to manage target access, want a standalone client as an OSGi bundle
** Links to Eclipsecon Tutorials; Getting-started Docs
+
* Daniel, Freescale - creating an agent on the host (in C++) - have their own '''C++ TCF library'''
*** What kind of information are adopters looking for?
+
** Might be a candidate for contributing eventually, but not his to decide
* What should the roadmap for TCF look like?
+
* Ed, Freescale - (a different group) - using TCF agent as-is on a PPC card for transaction services, have a '''simple C wrapper on the client'''
* How to improve collaboration among interested parties?
+
** Using standalone client as example with a simple C wrapper around, candidate for contribution
 +
* Fabio, Eldorado / TmL project - using TCF agent for accessing linux system's /proc information, also working on Kernel access (will be in next TmL release)
 +
* Henrik, ST-Ericsson - early phase, want a '''secure encrypted transport''' for handling logging on mobile phones (proof of concept for now);
 +
** initially a bridge: agent on the PC, linking to proprietary libs, end goal porting agent to ARM; performance is top important (because of huge amount of logging data)
 +
** Regarding contribution, not sure about legal situation, but can contribute bugzilla's (encryption for instance)
 +
** Wanted a headless lib initially, removed the Eclipse dependency, running plain Java
 +
* Ken, Nokia - Devtools group, but there are several other groups looking at TCF as well
 +
** Working on debugging tools; TCF agents for native windows debugging and symbian debugging on the device; agent for '''symbol reading DWARF files''' (not based on prototype agent's code) - Felix wants to align on interfaces for symbol reading
 +
** Symbian agent won't run on the device initially (start as a bridge), may move to the device eventually
 +
** Using core protocol and parts of the agent at the moment -- their agent is C++, so removed stuff of the reference agent
 +
 
 +
=== Discussion ===
 +
* Gaetan: Biggest problem is '''missing possibility to use protocol other than TCP/IP, e.g. serial'''; contribution is there but not (yet) accepted; but understands that it is a hard problem
 +
** Felix: Design is that it should be possible to add other channels - what's missing is somebody taking the time to implement (serial, udp, etc)
 +
** Today, most people build bridges; When Henrik moves TCF to the phone, would they use TCP? - Not yet sure, might use UDP
 +
** Wind River interested in other protocols, but no time yet
 +
 
 +
* Brian had trouble '''getting information what the plan or schedule is'''
 +
** When is a release, when is a good time to pick up a stable version, ...?
 +
** Martin: blackbox adoption (using unchanged downloads) vs. whitebox adoption (using, changing, exploring technology in source code)
 +
*** Ken: More interested in whitebox - picking up technology - hasn't had problems with HEAD so far
 +
*** Anna: MV would be interested in more communications like planning
 +
** Fabio: Dependency of TCF -> TM;
 +
** Ed: Would like a plan of additional activities: what major components does everybody work on, what's going on?
 +
*** Martin: Bugzilla is the preferred means for discussion
 +
 
 +
* Martin: Disjoint communities at Power.org and Eclipse - how to bring them closer together?
 +
** Felix: Power.org discussions result in proposals on Eclipse.org for further discussion
 +
** No forked standardization at power.org, will be populated as a bugzilla entry on Eclipse
 +
 
 +
* Martin: maturity status information about the protocol: what's frozen vs. what's work in progress?
 +
** Compatibility is an issue, always try to keep the protocol compatible; doc should say what parts of the protocol are frozen
 +
** '''AI Felix''' add versioning information to the documents; only make backward compatible changes after a given freeze
 +
 
 +
* Newcomers - Henrik/Peter: really liked the TCF Specification document, would have appreciated '''more "Getting Started" stuff'''
 +
** Would like '''more comments in the source code'''
 +
** Martin: encourage to '''file bugs for missing comments, and/or contribute patches with comments'''
 +
** Felix: It's easily '''possible to become a committer on TCF'''
 +
 
 +
=== Release / Plans ===
 +
 
 +
* Making a release clarifies status, but may also hinder innovation
 +
** Attendees do not have any concrete need for a release, seems mostly whitebox adoption.
 +
 
 +
== Summary ==
 +
* In general, it looks like everybody is happy with how the project works
 +
** Martin clarified communication channels and encouraged filing bugzilla's and sending to the mailing list.
 +
 
 +
* Question: Announcement about Eclipse Pulsar (Platform for Mobile), using TCF?
 +
** '''AI Henrik''' Send question on the mailing list, Felix to look at it
  
 
== Action Items ==
 
== Action Items ==
 
* [[Image:Ok_green.gif]] '''Martin''' to schedule a round-table call
 
* [[Image:Ok_green.gif]] '''Martin''' to schedule a round-table call
 +
* '''Felix''' to add versioning information into TCF Specification Document
 +
* '''Fabio''' to pick up TCF->TM dependency issue on the mailing list
 +
* '''Henrik''' to mention Eclipse Pulsar on the mailing list and ask whether they are using TCF
  
 
== Next Meeting ==
 
== Next Meeting ==
* '''To be decided during the meeting'''
+
* We didn't see a need to schedule another meeting, will discuss on offline media (mailing list).
 +
 
 
<!--
 
<!--
 
  Next [[DSDP/TCF/Meetings/26-Mar-2009]] (2 weeks after, at EclipseCon)
 
  Next [[DSDP/TCF/Meetings/26-Mar-2009]] (2 weeks after, at EclipseCon)
 
-->
 
-->

Latest revision as of 11:37, 9 December 2010

Meeting Title: TCF Round Table Meeting
Date & Time: Thursday Mar 12, 2009 at 1700 UTC / 1300 EST / 10am PST
Ical.gifiCal,Xml.gifATOM News Feed,Html.gifHTML
Dialo-in: International +44 (0)1452 567588 Freephone +1 (866) 6161738 / Passcode: 0587322148 #

Attendees

  • Wind River - Martin Oberhuber, Brian Nettleton, Doug Gaff, Doug Schaefer, Pawel Piech, Eugene Tarassov, Felix Burton
  • MontaVista - Anna Dushistova, Joe Green, Yufen Kuo
  • Freescale - Ed Swarthout, Daniel Friederich
  • Anyware Technologies - Gaetan Morice
  • Nokia - Ken Ryall
  • ST-Ericsson - Henrik Wallinder
  • Eldorado/TmL - Fabio Fantato

Agenda/Notes

Feel free to edit, but not during the meeting

How is TCF being used today?

  • Brian, Windriver - using TCF for a remote test product (customer specific at this time)
  • Joe, Montavista - not currently using TCF, but interested in standardizing on TCF for target communications
  • Gaetan, Anyware - using their own (branched) implementation in a product for target communications - some patches on bugzilla
    • Moved in a slightly different direction since, because there is no agent on the target - need to merge proprietarty protocol
    • TCF not extendable enough at the moment for proprietary extensions
    • Moving in the right direction with integration of patches
    • Looking at OSGi to manage target access, want a standalone client as an OSGi bundle
  • Daniel, Freescale - creating an agent on the host (in C++) - have their own C++ TCF library
    • Might be a candidate for contributing eventually, but not his to decide
  • Ed, Freescale - (a different group) - using TCF agent as-is on a PPC card for transaction services, have a simple C wrapper on the client
    • Using standalone client as example with a simple C wrapper around, candidate for contribution
  • Fabio, Eldorado / TmL project - using TCF agent for accessing linux system's /proc information, also working on Kernel access (will be in next TmL release)
  • Henrik, ST-Ericsson - early phase, want a secure encrypted transport for handling logging on mobile phones (proof of concept for now);
    • initially a bridge: agent on the PC, linking to proprietary libs, end goal porting agent to ARM; performance is top important (because of huge amount of logging data)
    • Regarding contribution, not sure about legal situation, but can contribute bugzilla's (encryption for instance)
    • Wanted a headless lib initially, removed the Eclipse dependency, running plain Java
  • Ken, Nokia - Devtools group, but there are several other groups looking at TCF as well
    • Working on debugging tools; TCF agents for native windows debugging and symbian debugging on the device; agent for symbol reading DWARF files (not based on prototype agent's code) - Felix wants to align on interfaces for symbol reading
    • Symbian agent won't run on the device initially (start as a bridge), may move to the device eventually
    • Using core protocol and parts of the agent at the moment -- their agent is C++, so removed stuff of the reference agent

Discussion

  • Gaetan: Biggest problem is missing possibility to use protocol other than TCP/IP, e.g. serial; contribution is there but not (yet) accepted; but understands that it is a hard problem
    • Felix: Design is that it should be possible to add other channels - what's missing is somebody taking the time to implement (serial, udp, etc)
    • Today, most people build bridges; When Henrik moves TCF to the phone, would they use TCP? - Not yet sure, might use UDP
    • Wind River interested in other protocols, but no time yet
  • Brian had trouble getting information what the plan or schedule is
    • When is a release, when is a good time to pick up a stable version, ...?
    • Martin: blackbox adoption (using unchanged downloads) vs. whitebox adoption (using, changing, exploring technology in source code)
      • Ken: More interested in whitebox - picking up technology - hasn't had problems with HEAD so far
      • Anna: MV would be interested in more communications like planning
    • Fabio: Dependency of TCF -> TM;
    • Ed: Would like a plan of additional activities: what major components does everybody work on, what's going on?
      • Martin: Bugzilla is the preferred means for discussion
  • Martin: Disjoint communities at Power.org and Eclipse - how to bring them closer together?
    • Felix: Power.org discussions result in proposals on Eclipse.org for further discussion
    • No forked standardization at power.org, will be populated as a bugzilla entry on Eclipse
  • Martin: maturity status information about the protocol: what's frozen vs. what's work in progress?
    • Compatibility is an issue, always try to keep the protocol compatible; doc should say what parts of the protocol are frozen
    • AI Felix add versioning information to the documents; only make backward compatible changes after a given freeze
  • Newcomers - Henrik/Peter: really liked the TCF Specification document, would have appreciated more "Getting Started" stuff
    • Would like more comments in the source code
    • Martin: encourage to file bugs for missing comments, and/or contribute patches with comments
    • Felix: It's easily possible to become a committer on TCF

Release / Plans

  • Making a release clarifies status, but may also hinder innovation
    • Attendees do not have any concrete need for a release, seems mostly whitebox adoption.

Summary

  • In general, it looks like everybody is happy with how the project works
    • Martin clarified communication channels and encouraged filing bugzilla's and sending to the mailing list.
  • Question: Announcement about Eclipse Pulsar (Platform for Mobile), using TCF?
    • AI Henrik Send question on the mailing list, Felix to look at it

Action Items

  • Ok green.gif Martin to schedule a round-table call
  • Felix to add versioning information into TCF Specification Document
  • Fabio to pick up TCF->TM dependency issue on the mailing list
  • Henrik to mention Eclipse Pulsar on the mailing list and ask whether they are using TCF

Next Meeting

  • We didn't see a need to schedule another meeting, will discuss on offline media (mailing list).


Back to the top