Skip to main content

Notice: this Wiki will be going read only early in 2024 and edits will no longer be possible. Please see: for the plan.

Jump to: navigation, search

JEE Status Meetings/2009-12-03


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


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

Flexible Modules

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

Other topics

Server Tools Enhancements: 293742 292194 291833 286699 282483

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


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.

Back to the top