From MemberWiki

Minutes stored at url: http://www.openajax.org/member/wiki/Server_TF_Minutes_2007-01-17

Attendees

• Ric Smith <richard.allen.smith(at)oracle.com>
• Christophe Jolif <cjolif (at) ilog.fr>
• Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai (at) us.ibm.com>
• Ken Tam <kentam(at)bea.com>
• Shel Finkelstein <shel.finkelstein (at) sap.com>
• Ted Goddard <ted.goddard(at)icesoft.com>
• Ted Thibodeau <tthibodeau (at) openlinksw.com>

Original Agenda

• Agenda
  • Begin review of use cases covering surveyed technologies
    • Plan forward:
      • Attempt to evolve from varied approaches into unified common architectural approach
      • Use this to drive upcoming Use cases and Requirements
      • Pass on info to the larger Working Group
  • Wrap up

Minutes

Ric: Last time we reviewed jMaki. Now, maybe best thing is to review topics covered and what are the next steps. Maybe next next is use cases and maybe jMaki is architecture of focus.

Jon: My impression is that jMaki is a main focus for discussion at IDE TF but just another product within this TF.

Ric: But jMaki unique in that it is technology agnostic. Other survey topics were tied to a particular technology.

Jon: OK. Therefore, jMaki deserves special consideration because of that attribute it has.

Ric: Are there any outstanding items from surveys that translate into requirements?

Shel: What are we going to do for approaching what are requirements? Is our goal to define the requirements?

Ric: My suggestion is to define use cases before requirements. Start divvying up the survey and turn into use cases.

Jon: Divvying up sounds good to me. OK with everyone else?

(Silence implies consent)

Ric: GregW's suggestions for requirements?

Jon: Just suggestions. Not discussed or approved yet. Needs refinement and review.

Christophe: I can write our use cases. But people may not agree.

Ric: May be best approach. Might create conflict but will promote discussion. Each member puts uses cases for their products.

Christophe: Good approach.

Jon: Good to me, also. How about collect use cases and requirements in parallel but discuss the serially (i.e., use cases first)?

Ric: Perfect.

Jon: Sounds like a plan. Everyone who did a survey needs to extract use cases and requirements and add them to wiki page.

Ric: I will take Chris's survey and focus more on ADF Faces.

Ric: How about timeline?

(someone): How to write up use cases?

Ric: Actors are often client browser and server tier. With server side components, there might be 3 actors.

Ric/Jon: Need use cases for both interop scenarios and single toolkit scenarios

Ric: Any good use cases to emulate?

Jon: No precedent. Hub has use cases, but they are very brief and might be developed further down the road. This group is pioneering in this area. Don't want to be too formal. OpenAjax tries to be lightweight and fast-moving.

Ric: Maybe a title and a short description.

Ric: I can put an outline on the wiki. Maybe that should be our next discussion item.

Jon: How about you do use cases first, then we discuss?

Ric: OK. I can finish within a week.

Jon: Next meeting, 1 or 2 weeks from now?

Ric: 2 weeks.

Jon: OK, outline, with your use cases and requirements within one week. People can comment and discuss via email. Others should enter their use cases and requirements before our next meeting.

Ric: I can send email to Greg Murrary.

Jon: Copy the other people from Sun on the TF.

TedG: I can do it.

Ken: Will look at things. Harder to say if we have any server products in this area. Mainly, we just want to have Ajax interoperability in the community.

Christophe: I can do it in two weeks.

Jon: Joonas isn't here. Ric, can you send email?

Ric: Yes.

(end of meeting)