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.
COSMOS Resource Modeling Meeting Minutes
Minutes for Resource Modeling meetings.
Contents
Dec 5 2006
- There have been several requests for a SML sample. ACTION: S Jerman to ask SML Group when sample is going to be available. [Done - they will investigate]
- Progress report on Validation, IF inport/export: updates added to Wiki page.
- Next meeting 5th Jan.
Jan 5 2007
Attendees: Mark, Valentina, Steve Discussion:
- Progressing on validator. SML workshop may be delayed which will give more time.
- Need to discuss schedule, interaction with other projects, deliverables at Face2Face. ACTION: Steve to add to agenda.
- Discussed need for more samples.
- Next meeting: 19th Jan
26 October 2007
- Working on documenting interfaces and refining issues related to adopters with different data types
- Working on putting together a demo of our CMDBf extensions
David whiteman.us.ibm.com 14:41, 26 October 2007 (EDT)
29 April 2008
Attendees: Rich Vasconi (IBM), Merri Jensen (SAS), Mark McCraw (SAS), Ali Mehregani (IBM), David Whiteman (IBM)
Discussion:
- Gave brief overview of RM to Merri and Mark, members of the SDD team who are wanting to ramp up on SML
- Started to go through open RM bug list in order to identify high priority items for i11
- Ali and David agreed to split up the investigation and assignment of P1 and P2 defects to determine whether they need a different priority, should be closed, and should be i11 or future.
- When the topic of bug 213635 came up, we discussed how the documentation for SML and other COSMOS areas would be delivered via Eclipse. David explained that the current intent is to provide the whole User Guide and Developer Guide as integrated with Eclipse help. Ali suggested that much of those documents, particularly in the UG, would not make sense in the Eclipse environment, since the actors wanting that information would not be using Eclipse. Rich mentioned that he has the ability to exclude parts of the doc from the Eclipse based online help. David said that it would be tricky to decide what to include and how to package it, and that we should look at how other Eclipse projects handle this. This might need to be revisited at a community call or summit.
- We discussed ideas for restructuring our teams on the project. David suggested that if we were not going to be a toplevel project for 1.0, we can now establish the structure of our "workgroups". He mentioned some ideas he had, most notably breaking up the DC team into two, since there is a significant variance in the scope of that subproject. He also mentioned that part of this activity (or all of it) could be in finding people to lead the subteams that are actively involved in the work on those teams.
- Ali expressed concern that more teams would mean more overhead in the project.
13 May 2008
Attendees: Merri Jensen(SAS), Mark McCraw (SAS), Ali Mehregani (IBM), David Whiteman (IBM)
Discussion:
- No new status to report for RM deliverables, other than what is already on the status wiki page
- David explained to Mary and Mark the current focus of the RM team, which is 1.1 spec compliance and bug fixing
- Mark asked about the Tigerstripe integration, and David pointed out that is future work of interest for building SML resources from graphical templates
20 May 2008
Attendees: Ali (IBM), David (IBM), Mark (SAS), Jason (SAS)
Discussion:
- David suggested SDD meeting should become ME meeting, and that it should precede the community call. Jason to send out new meeting time and subject.
- David suggested possibly should do i11 design review, since we have somewhat gotten out of the practice of reviewing enhancement designs
- Everyone feels comfortable with design process described on the cosmos-dev thread
- Current status is up to date on week 3 build status page
27 May 2008
Attendees: David (IBM), Ali (IBM), Mark (SAS)
Discussion:
- Current status of deliverables
- No status changes to report on RM items since last week
- Ali pointed out that on the release plan, the dev cycle for this iteration ends on June 4, and the test cycle is 3 weeks. We all agreed that it makes sense to lengthen the dev cycle and shorten the test cycle, given that this is no longer the final iteration for 1.0 and that i11 has a focus on stability. TODO: David to raise this issue on community call. David and Ali to meanwhile ensure that high priority i11 items are completed, regardless of the end of the dev cycle.
- John Arwe, SML spec lead, has provided us feedback on possible items for improvement in testing & implementation, and that should result in some additional bug reports forthcoming
- Mark asked for areas where he could contribute to RM and get his feet wet. David suggested that he could look at bug 229890 as a good starting point for validation work, and Ali agreed. Several of the other defects are more related to Eclipse APIs, and bug 232078 is just grunt work to refactor the package names for our API guidelines. David mentioned that CA might be looking to get more involved with RM as well, given its synergy with CMDBf and their participation in the SML workgroup. TODO: Mark will look at 229890 this week and possibly others, and will work with David & Ali to better understand the workitems and to get pointers regarding the RM codebase.
3 June 2008
Attendees: David (IBM), Ali (IBM), Mark (SAS)
Discussion:
- Current status of deliverables
- Ali said he would only be able to get to RM defects during the test cycle and would submit them as patches, due to his enhancement deliverables. These will all be marked as At Risk.
- Mark is making progress on 229890.
- David's remaining SML defects are At Risk due to other responsibilities as well.
10 June 2008
Attendees: David (IBM), Ali (IBM), Mark (SAS), Merri (SAS), Jason (SAS)
Discussion:
8 July 2008
Attendees: David (IBM), Ali (IBM), Mark (SAS), Hubert (IBM), Jason (SAS)
Discussion:
- Introduced Mark to Hubert
- Hubert is setting up SML development environment, and will also read SML specs
- Mark is entering new defects today based on problems and observations he made during i11
- Ali has completed PSVI rework on acyclic builders, validator, and tests. He is modifying document builders to be aware of SML-IF bindings.
- David is working on the substitution builder for the target builders. He also is determining why target instance builder test is failing on IBM JRE. Apparently Xerces needs to be ahead of the JRE on the bootpath. David has the todo to confirm we are legally clear to prereq Xerces.
15 July 2008
Attendees: David (IBM), Ali (IBM), Hubert (IBM)
Discussion:
Status:
- Hubert looked at removing dependencies for SML MDR. He was able to reduce them, especially in the web services. After that we still have some Eclipse dependencies, most of which are EPL. One of them is an OSGi bundle with 3rd party code. Hubert is checking to see if we need an IPZilla for it. The build script has changed to not package the jars and plugins that are not needed.
- Hubert is looking at locid feature. He has made some progress and is looking for some clarifications, from us and maybe John.
- Ali met with Sandy Gao about the validators. He found that our schema bindings should be interpreted differently, that each schema binding should be treated as one validation set, done one at a time. Any references between the sets should be raised as invalid. This requires changes in our framework code. Ali is trying to minimize disruption to the data builders. The net is we might need to parse through a document multiple times.
- David working on target & schematron validators, reworking to implement and reuse parsing of element type data, and developing new JUnits.
- Overall status of PSVI work: on track
- Hubert presented his thoughts on locid. We determined that there does need to be an implementation of it, that it's not simply coming up with an example. We determined more clarification is needed as to how the locale is specified, and whether substitution needs to be supported. Hubert will follow up with John Arwe to determine this. Status information is pending this decision.