IDE Minutes 2007-08-16

From MemberWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

URL: http://www.openajax.org/member/wiki/IDE_Minutes_2007-08-16

Contents

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>

Minutes

(continuing to review and finalize http://www.openajax.org/member/wiki/IDE/requirements. Jon updated the document as decisions were made in the meeting.)

Dependencies section

Jon: No Kevin today. Should I do my best to lead the discussion and continue to plow through the requirements document?

everyone: yes

Jon: Starting from the bottom, the first open item is the last bullet under dependencies.

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)

Download/discovery

(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 format.

Exclusions section

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)

Issues 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 phase.

Phil: What about the public vs private bullet?

Ingo: We might need a MAY or SHOULD bullet about what APIs are private vs public.

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)

Personal tools