[OpenAjaxIDE] Minutes phone call 2007-08-16
khakman at tibco.com
Thu Aug 16 10:01:02 PDT 2007
Thanks Jon. Sorry to have missed the call this AM.
Director, Developer Evangelism
Co-Founder General Interface Enterprise Ajax Toolkit
P: (415) 225-4259 E: khakman at tibco.com
TIBCO Software Inc.
All information in this email is proprietary and confidential.
From: ide-bounces at openajax.org [mailto:ide-bounces at openajax.org] On
Behalf Of Jon Ferraiolo
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 9:14 AM
To: ide at openajax.org
Subject: [OpenAjaxIDE] Minutes phone call 2007-08-16
IDE Minutes 2007-08-16
Attendees this week
* Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai(at)us.ibm.com>
* Phil Berkland <berkland(at)us.ibm.com> representing
Eclipse ATF project
* Lori Hylan-Cho <lorihc(at)adobe.com>
* Ingo Muschenetz <ingo(at)aptana.com>
(continuing to review and finalize
<http://www.openajax.org/member/wiki/IDE/requirements> . Jon updated the
document as decisions were made in the meeting.)
Jon: No Kevin today. Should I do my best to lead the discussion and
continue to plow through the requirements document?
Jon: Starting from the bottom, the first open item is the last bullet
Ingo: I updated that bullet at the end of last week's meeting and we
need to review it.
Jon: Looks OK with me.
(everyone ok to say it is approved)
Tangent on simple metadata
Ingo: Looks like we are missing simple metadata about the toolkit itself
Lori: I have been working on a makeshift metadata file for work I am
doing and I have included information about author and the URL
Jon: I'll take an action to add a new bullet about simple metadata that
we can review next week. (NOTE: Action has now been completed)
(Lots of discussion about the 4 original bullets. Phil pointed out that
there was overlap between the original #1 and original #3 bullets, so we
consolidated. We reworded things to be about how the metadata
must/should/may do things rather than the ide must/should/may do things.
Changed must/should/may to some other values on at least one bullet. We
reviewed these changed and decided to APPROVE)
Ingo: I will send a link to the Aptana microformat for update
information (NOTE: Ingo has already sent this link to the list)
Tangent on comparison table
(Not sure how we ended up on this tangent, but we talked about
attempting a comparison table that includes the requirements in column 1
and then columns 2-N talk about whether a vendor's metadata format
addresses the requirement. We talked about how terrible it is to work
with wiki tables, but we will give it a try to see how painful it is.)
Ingo: I would be willing to fill out the column for Aptana's metadata
Jon: Second-to-last section is on those features that we will not
attempt to support. There are an infinite number of features we won't
address. I suggest removing this section and having this document only
talk about what is included and not talk about what is excluded.
(everyone agrees to remove the section)
(cheering about coming to the final section)
Jon: First bullet is on server-side vs client-side. We have talked about
this but I don't remember if we concluded this topic.
Ingo: At last phone call, Bertrand and Greg were happy about the
requirements and they have server-side products.
Jon: I would argue that Dreamweaver, also GoLive, support both
server-side and client-side
Lori: It is true that Dreamweaver has server-side features. For widgets,
though, the focus is client-side. (Lori indicated she is fine with the
requirements as they stand.)
Jon: I don't think we are going to do a better job defining our
requirements if we have more discussion about server-side vs client-side
and instead should drop this bullet and move onto our specification
Phil: What about the public vs private bullet?
Ingo: We might need a MAY or SHOULD bullet about what APIs are private
Jon: Isn't it the case that if you document an API, it is public,
otherwise it is private?
Ingo: We do code assist for all APIs. Some developers have asked that we
don't do code assist for private APIs. If we have metadata on the
private APIs, we could disable content assist.
Jon: I will take an action to add a bullet about public vs private APIs.
(NOTE: this action has been completed)
Jon: Do we all agree that it is OK to remove this final section on
issues after having added a new bullet on public vs private APIs?
Ingo: But let's let Kevin look at it first before removing it.
Jon: OK (NOTE: comment added about final section saying we think it
should be deleted by we are waiting on Kevin to review before deleting)
(end of meeting)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the IDE