Communications Hub TF Minutes 2007-07-19

From MemberWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Attendees

  • Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai(at)us.ibm.com>
  • Ted Goddard <ted.goddard(at)icesoft.com>
  • Coach Wei <coach(at)nexaweb.com>
  • Greg Wilkins <gregw(at)webtide.com>
  • Louenas Hamdi <louenas(at)sap.com>
  • Gustavo Munoz <Jackbe.com>

Agenda

  • 1. Identify scribe
  • 2. Review previous action items:
    • Coach: write up the 5th use case & propose language (closed)
    • Coach: Start a requirements document / page for solution/s (closed)
    • Howard: propose something re security zones and restricting interfaces between them (reuse case #1)
    • Howard: provide more info re JSR 286 (for use case #3)
    • Greg: add batch processing and provider mechanism to the Events proposal;
    • Howard: make a proposal on point to point communication.
  • 4. Discuss F2F meeting at Ajax Experience
    • Time and Location
    • Topics to be included in the agenda?


Minutes

Coach: who will be scribe for today?

long pause

longer pause

gregw: Oh OK!

Coach: Howard is not here and he had three tasks: portal, security and point to point.

jon: On the portal stuff, tried to talk to stefan from websphere portal but talked to stefan from jsr286 spec instead. Only Ajax related work is to allow portlets to save state.

ted: portlets intended to have xmlportlet request, but not now not doing that.

jon: explained bayeux to stefan. he didn't object to the concept

Coach: can you put me in contact with stefan?

jon: ok

gregw: did batch the batch API extension. Do we need point to point? Isn't pub/sub a superset of point to point?

Coach: agree that pub/sub may be enough.

gregw: propose not wait for a point to point proposal, but consider it if one is forthcoming.

general agreement

coach: we should start simple and then grow.


jon: speaks to his roadmap/proposal. attends all meetings..... so has overview and sees the overlap. trying to finalize hub 1.0 described detail of : /member/wiki/OpenAjax_Hub_1.1_Roadmap

gregw: should be a proposal in its own right? There appears to be be broad consensus that the communications hub should be an extension of the pub/sub mechanism that takes into account cross frame and security concerns.

General agreement

gregw: This is good thing to have consensus on. The various proposal can now be evaluated in this light.

jon: security was the driver for his proposal..... SMASH mushups needs iframes and cross frame communications that don't let evil.com subscribe to **. Rooms provide a scope for ** and a security manager controls access to rooms.

gregw: rooms are semantically equivalent to event bridge proposal. One you add event topics to a empowered room, the other you empower an individual topic. Perhaps rooms could be modelled in name space rather than API, something like: //room/topic.name

jon: rooms have different security managers

ted: Do we need acl for individual topics?

jon: push off to higher level security manager. hub has pluggable security manager.

Coach: should the publisher control security

jon: publisher control is at room scope.

jon: rooms may avoid recusion. scopes may be recursive

gregw: different concerns drove proposals

coach: all proposals need all concerns addressed

jon: joint meeting with security.... in 2 weeks time.

coach: good idea... lets decide at face 2 face.

gregw: we should do use-case driven proposal evaluation. I will create draft list

coach: wed 25th for face to face.

lunas: mobile taskforce meeting. Comms very much related. suggests waiting on comms for extra slow networks

gregw: providers will allow different comms concerns below the level of the API.

Action Items

Gregw: list of use-cases against which proposals may be evaluated.

Coach: Announce time for face2face, publish agenda.

Jon: book room for face2face.