Notice: This Wiki is now read only and edits are no longer possible. Please see: https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/helpdesk/-/wikis/Wiki-shutdown-plan for the plan.
Difference between revisions of "DSDP/MTJ/Face-to-Face Meeting San Francisco 16 and 17-Aug-2006"
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
- Petri explained legal status | - Petri explained legal status | ||
| − | + | :- due diligence clear | |
| − | + | :- 3rd party license texts not clear. | |
| − | + | :- Kevin asked if we can remove problematic parts and put code out to open CVS immediately | |
| − | + | - Open Legal Issues | |
| − | + | :- Arto said that we don't need Jetty because we don't use OTA. We could remove the code, or we could look at using Jetty 6, which we believe has cleared legal? | |
| − | + | :- We will remove Nokia device deployment out until internal legal issues are worked out. | |
| − | + | :- Status of ASM needs to be checked but those could be dropped also in a case of Release 1. | |
AP Craig: Contact Janet and ask Jetty 6 | AP Craig: Contact Janet and ask Jetty 6 | ||
| + | |||
AP Arto: Prepare actions to code transfer to open CVS | AP Arto: Prepare actions to code transfer to open CVS | ||
| + | |||
AP Kevin: Check About.html files | AP Kevin: Check About.html files | ||
| + | |||
AP Petri: Verify from Janet that can we put the code out with these pieces removed | AP Petri: Verify from Janet that can we put the code out with these pieces removed | ||
| + | |||
- Documentation work is ongoing. Developer documentation was discussed. At the moment code is not well commented and generated javadoc would be lacking. Kevin proposed that we would explain in more detail the SDK plug-in extension point and deployment extension point. We will generate javadocs and extension point references. | - Documentation work is ongoing. Developer documentation was discussed. At the moment code is not well commented and generated javadoc would be lacking. Kevin proposed that we would explain in more detail the SDK plug-in extension point and deployment extension point. We will generate javadocs and extension point references. | ||
AP Petri: Discuss with Arto about raw material for extension point tutorials. | AP Petri: Discuss with Arto about raw material for extension point tutorials. | ||
| + | |||
- Kevin said that we have discussed with Stanley from Apogee and he thinks that in MTJ there is not enough for their purposes. | - Kevin said that we have discussed with Stanley from Apogee and he thinks that in MTJ there is not enough for their purposes. | ||
| + | |||
AP Kevin: Send the Apogee feedback | AP Kevin: Send the Apogee feedback | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
- Arto mentioned that Sybase has proposed to provide some code from their deployment. | - Arto mentioned that Sybase has proposed to provide some code from their deployment. | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | :- Kevin said that TM project is working to have deployment frw to devices. | ||
| + | |||
- It was discussed that we need to get feedback | - It was discussed that we need to get feedback | ||
AP Craig: Contact to Siemens and ask them if they could try the MTJ | AP Craig: Contact to Siemens and ask them if they could try the MTJ | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | Action plan to reach R1 | ||
| + | |||
- Target is to get code out 30th of August and publish M1 build. Then M2 build after 2-3 weeks and R1 on October. | - Target is to get code out 30th of August and publish M1 build. Then M2 build after 2-3 weeks and R1 on October. | ||
| + | |||
- Mika proposed if we could extend project wizard with template which generates some basic code (Hello World). That should be optional thing. | - Mika proposed if we could extend project wizard with template which generates some basic code (Hello World). That should be optional thing. | ||
AP Kevin: Discuss with Rodrigo about the templates. Will get back to issue latest 23rd. | AP Kevin: Discuss with Rodrigo about the templates. Will get back to issue latest 23rd. | ||
| + | |||
- We discussed about the MTJ usability. We should add all kind of descriptions to dialogs so that they are understandable. | - We discussed about the MTJ usability. We should add all kind of descriptions to dialogs so that they are understandable. | ||
AP Kevin: Will check the messages and texts | AP Kevin: Will check the messages and texts | ||
| + | |||
- Our first release will be 0.7 | - Our first release will be 0.7 | ||
| + | |||
AP Petri & Mika: Prepare release review | AP Petri & Mika: Prepare release review | ||
| + | |||
AP Petri: Figure out the delivery mechanism | AP Petri: Figure out the delivery mechanism | ||
Lessons Learned | Lessons Learned | ||
| + | |||
- There were many discussions about the legal issues. Craig mentioned that Janet has asked if eclipseME could be inside the MTJ | - There were many discussions about the legal issues. Craig mentioned that Janet has asked if eclipseME could be inside the MTJ | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
- We discussed out methods of communication related to ongoing work, design, and status. Are we using Use cases? How to agree features and example UIs? | - We discussed out methods of communication related to ongoing work, design, and status. Are we using Use cases? How to agree features and example UIs? | ||
| + | |||
AP Petri: think about the posting the bi-weekly call agenda to website | AP Petri: think about the posting the bi-weekly call agenda to website | ||
| + | |||
- It was discussed about the architecture and complexity of it. It was agreed that it provides excellent extensibility but on the other hand it may be hard to understand. We need to listen the feedback and react if needed. | - It was discussed about the architecture and complexity of it. It was agreed that it provides excellent extensibility but on the other hand it may be hard to understand. We need to listen the feedback and react if needed. | ||
| + | |||
AP Petri & Mika: Discuss about the tools used in the development of MTJ | AP Petri & Mika: Discuss about the tools used in the development of MTJ | ||
| + | |||
- We could start to use UI mock-ups after Use cases. Also some kind of dependency drawing. | - We could start to use UI mock-ups after Use cases. Also some kind of dependency drawing. | ||
| + | |||
- Craig proposed that we could set up the development team call e.g. weekly and then have common call for interested parties monthly | - Craig proposed that we could set up the development team call e.g. weekly and then have common call for interested parties monthly | ||
| + | |||
Other | Other | ||
| + | |||
- It was discussed if Kevin could go to Sprint event and have a presentation there | - It was discussed if Kevin could go to Sprint event and have a presentation there | ||
| Line 90: | Line 113: | ||
- We discussed about the different fragmentation solutions | - We discussed about the different fragmentation solutions | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Thursday 17th | Thursday 17th | ||
Planning of Release 2 | Planning of Release 2 | ||
| + | |||
- It was discussed about the UI builders. Co-operation with eRCP project will be arranged. Mika and Petri will have a meeting with Nokia representative in eRCP on week 35. | - It was discussed about the UI builders. Co-operation with eRCP project will be arranged. Mika and Petri will have a meeting with Nokia representative in eRCP on week 35. | ||
| − | + | :- IBM may have some code for an eSWT visual editor | |
| − | + | :- We discussed about the benefit of Visual designers | |
| − | + | :- Framework part is important so that vendors can extend it | |
AP Kevin & Arto: Check IBM code, which could be available. What would be the work estimates to create UI builders | AP Kevin & Arto: Check IBM code, which could be available. What would be the work estimates to create UI builders | ||
| − | - Fragmentation area is one major issues in R2. It was discussed about the options that we have available. And it was agreed that we may not have ultimate solution but we will have some solution. We don't want to decide solution yet but keep all options open | + | - Fragmentation area is one major issues in R2. It was discussed about the options that we have available. And it was agreed that we may not have ultimate solution but we will have some solution. We don't want to decide solution yet but keep all options open. |
| − | + | ||
| + | :- There is a document from Craig which will be the starting point. We will then create Use cases and then decide what we want to have in next release. | ||
AP Craig: find the documentation, check it and sent to the others | AP Craig: find the documentation, check it and sent to the others | ||
- Obfuscation will be part of the release. We will have support for external obfuscators. We will continue discussions to get integrated obfuscators. | - Obfuscation will be part of the release. We will have support for external obfuscators. We will continue discussions to get integrated obfuscators. | ||
| − | + | :- We need to select the list of obfuscators which are supported | |
| − | + | :- We need to think about also our customers when selecting the preferred obfuscators (license) | |
AP Mika & Petri: Start discussions with obfuscators companies | AP Mika & Petri: Start discussions with obfuscators companies | ||
| Line 121: | Line 142: | ||
- Localization discussed. We need to have a mechanism to manage resources in our build system. | - Localization discussed. We need to have a mechanism to manage resources in our build system. | ||
| − | + | :- We will identify and document this issue and then split it down to smaller pieces using Use cases | |
- We will be schedule driven | - We will be schedule driven | ||
| + | |||
- We need to start to follow eclipse development process and create milestone builds constantly before release | - We need to start to follow eclipse development process and create milestone builds constantly before release | ||
| + | |||
- We identified the initial schedule (Start 10/2006, Content defined 11/2006, M1 01/2007....M5 05/2007, Release candidate1 06/2007, Release candidate 2 07/2007, release Q3/23007) | - We identified the initial schedule (Start 10/2006, Content defined 11/2006, M1 01/2007....M5 05/2007, Release candidate1 06/2007, Release candidate 2 07/2007, release Q3/23007) | ||
| + | |||
- Schedule needs to be synchronized with eclipse release schedule | - Schedule needs to be synchronized with eclipse release schedule | ||
| + | |||
- resource level in Nokia and IBM will remain the same | - resource level in Nokia and IBM will remain the same | ||
| + | |||
- We need to improve in the visibility to Nokia resources and improve community. | - We need to improve in the visibility to Nokia resources and improve community. | ||
| + | |||
- Use cases used as a guidance for development | - Use cases used as a guidance for development | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | :- we need to be able to approve them | |
| − | + | :- can be changed later with notification | |
| − | + | :- Use cases to Wiki | |
| − | + | :- Discussion and management bugzilla | |
| + | :- Change management through a bug | ||
| + | |||
General | General | ||
| + | |||
AP Petri: Check from legal are we allowed to put references (e.g. to sun WTK) to our user docs | AP Petri: Check from legal are we allowed to put references (e.g. to sun WTK) to our user docs | ||
| + | |||
AP Petri: Send minutes and material to others | AP Petri: Send minutes and material to others | ||
Latest revision as of 09:47, 28 August 2006
| Meeting Title: | Mobile Tools for the Java Platform Face-to-Face meeting | |
| Date & Time & Place: | August 16-17, 2006 | San Francisco, CA |
Attendees
- Kevin Horowitz, IBM
- Mika Hoikkala, Nokia
- Arto Laurila, Nokia
- Petri Virtanen, Nokia
- Craig Setera
Notes
Wednesday 16th
Status
- Petri explained legal status
- - due diligence clear
- - 3rd party license texts not clear.
- - Kevin asked if we can remove problematic parts and put code out to open CVS immediately
- Open Legal Issues
- - Arto said that we don't need Jetty because we don't use OTA. We could remove the code, or we could look at using Jetty 6, which we believe has cleared legal?
- - We will remove Nokia device deployment out until internal legal issues are worked out.
- - Status of ASM needs to be checked but those could be dropped also in a case of Release 1.
AP Craig: Contact Janet and ask Jetty 6
AP Arto: Prepare actions to code transfer to open CVS
AP Kevin: Check About.html files
AP Petri: Verify from Janet that can we put the code out with these pieces removed
- Documentation work is ongoing. Developer documentation was discussed. At the moment code is not well commented and generated javadoc would be lacking. Kevin proposed that we would explain in more detail the SDK plug-in extension point and deployment extension point. We will generate javadocs and extension point references.
AP Petri: Discuss with Arto about raw material for extension point tutorials.
- Kevin said that we have discussed with Stanley from Apogee and he thinks that in MTJ there is not enough for their purposes.
AP Kevin: Send the Apogee feedback
- Arto mentioned that Sybase has proposed to provide some code from their deployment.
- - Kevin said that TM project is working to have deployment frw to devices.
- It was discussed that we need to get feedback
AP Craig: Contact to Siemens and ask them if they could try the MTJ
Action plan to reach R1
- Target is to get code out 30th of August and publish M1 build. Then M2 build after 2-3 weeks and R1 on October.
- Mika proposed if we could extend project wizard with template which generates some basic code (Hello World). That should be optional thing.
AP Kevin: Discuss with Rodrigo about the templates. Will get back to issue latest 23rd.
- We discussed about the MTJ usability. We should add all kind of descriptions to dialogs so that they are understandable.
AP Kevin: Will check the messages and texts
- Our first release will be 0.7
AP Petri & Mika: Prepare release review
AP Petri: Figure out the delivery mechanism
Lessons Learned
- There were many discussions about the legal issues. Craig mentioned that Janet has asked if eclipseME could be inside the MTJ
- We discussed out methods of communication related to ongoing work, design, and status. Are we using Use cases? How to agree features and example UIs?
AP Petri: think about the posting the bi-weekly call agenda to website
- It was discussed about the architecture and complexity of it. It was agreed that it provides excellent extensibility but on the other hand it may be hard to understand. We need to listen the feedback and react if needed.
AP Petri & Mika: Discuss about the tools used in the development of MTJ
- We could start to use UI mock-ups after Use cases. Also some kind of dependency drawing.
- Craig proposed that we could set up the development team call e.g. weekly and then have common call for interested parties monthly
Other
- It was discussed if Kevin could go to Sprint event and have a presentation there
AP Petri: Send event details to Kevin
- We discussed about the different fragmentation solutions
Thursday 17th
Planning of Release 2
- It was discussed about the UI builders. Co-operation with eRCP project will be arranged. Mika and Petri will have a meeting with Nokia representative in eRCP on week 35.
- - IBM may have some code for an eSWT visual editor
- - We discussed about the benefit of Visual designers
- - Framework part is important so that vendors can extend it
AP Kevin & Arto: Check IBM code, which could be available. What would be the work estimates to create UI builders
- Fragmentation area is one major issues in R2. It was discussed about the options that we have available. And it was agreed that we may not have ultimate solution but we will have some solution. We don't want to decide solution yet but keep all options open.
- - There is a document from Craig which will be the starting point. We will then create Use cases and then decide what we want to have in next release.
AP Craig: find the documentation, check it and sent to the others
- Obfuscation will be part of the release. We will have support for external obfuscators. We will continue discussions to get integrated obfuscators.
- - We need to select the list of obfuscators which are supported
- - We need to think about also our customers when selecting the preferred obfuscators (license)
AP Mika & Petri: Start discussions with obfuscators companies
- Kevin said that we need to create the provider to add non-UEI SDKs. That was agreed. Arto mentioned that it shouldn't be a big task.
- We need to enhance the support for other configurations and profiles. It was agreed that CDC, Personal Profile, Foundation Profile, Personal Basis Profile and MIDP 2.1 will at the scope. MIDP 3.0 out of the scope.
- Localization discussed. We need to have a mechanism to manage resources in our build system.
- - We will identify and document this issue and then split it down to smaller pieces using Use cases
- We will be schedule driven
- We need to start to follow eclipse development process and create milestone builds constantly before release
- We identified the initial schedule (Start 10/2006, Content defined 11/2006, M1 01/2007....M5 05/2007, Release candidate1 06/2007, Release candidate 2 07/2007, release Q3/23007)
- Schedule needs to be synchronized with eclipse release schedule
- resource level in Nokia and IBM will remain the same
- We need to improve in the visibility to Nokia resources and improve community.
- Use cases used as a guidance for development
- - we need to be able to approve them
- - can be changed later with notification
- - Use cases to Wiki
- - Discussion and management bugzilla
- - Change management through a bug
General
AP Petri: Check from legal are we allowed to put references (e.g. to sun WTK) to our user docs
AP Petri: Send minutes and material to others