Eclipse Community Forums: DSDP - Mobile Tools for Java (MTJ)

Help

Home

Home » Archived » DSDP - Mobile Tools for Java (MTJ) » Meeting minutes for Nov 2, 2005

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator

Meeting minutes for Nov 2, 2005 [message #3606]

Wed, 02 November 2005 17:51

No real name

Messages: 42
Registered: July 2009

Member

Time - 9am EST
Attendees (sorry for any misspellings - please send me corrections)

IBM
David Reich
Kevin Horowitz
Fernando Concha

Nokia
Mika Hoikkala
Arto Laurila
Jesper Aaen
Steven Novakovich

EclipseME
Craig Setera

Sony Ericsson
Thomas Bailey
Tomas Carlström
Yury Onischuk
Erik Starck

Fred Grott

Summary:

1- Introductions.

2- Level set on directions and where this MTJ project is trying to go,
and where we are now. Mika (Nokia) is the overall PM for the project,
and is working with Eclipse to move the project to approved. We've
gotten some god activity on the newsgroup, and documented interest.
Mika is working on the process and will provide more next week on
what/when we can expect.

3- EclipseCon 2006 - Craig (EclipseME) has submitted a proposal for a
talk, and we discussed if there should be one combined talk, or two
separate ones. Consensus is that I (Dave) will submit a talk on MTJ,
and we'll have Craig's there too. If both get accepted, we will develop
a couple of common charts to use in both that describe how we're working
together and how we go from here. If only one gets accepted, we can
figure out how/if to combine them.

4- Discussion on the Emulator topic. UEI is a de facto standard, and a
number of folks are using it, but it has many legal ramifications
because of the fact it is not "open" in the JCP or any other body. Sun
licenses it, but what would we be able to ship open source to support it
under these restrictions? Nokia continues to work with/on Sun to resolve.

In the meantime, we are going to look at a higher level interface, like
an eXtensible Emulator Interface (XEI?) that we can define and control
and enhance, and support UEI as a client underneath it, so those with
UEI emulators can work underneath us, and those wanting more function
than UEI can provide, can code emulators right to XEI. A question for
resolution is are there any license problems associated with shipping
UEI support in Eclipse given it's proprietary nature to Sun? Needs to
be tackled by a legal person - need to follow up here.

5- Use case discussion. This has been occurring on this news group, and
we talked about some items around it and the best way to continue. Fred
offered to look into setting up a WIKI for ongoing discussion and we can
see how we want to store the repository of documents we come up with for
this. I believe the CVS system would be the right place for it, and
approved committers will be able to update it, and anyone can see it,
with it being open source.

6- Thomas Bailey of SonyEricsson said that SE would also like to
contribute/commit code to this project, and they have to work through
their internal mgt before stating more precisely how much could be
committed here.

7- As per a posting on the newsgroup today, looks like Fred Grott is
interested in contributing code as well.

Until further notice, the calls for this meeting will occur Wednesdays
at 9am EST, at the phone number previously posted, and I will post
reminders and updates as needed.

If anyone knows of anything I missed, please let me know.

Thanks!

David Reich
IBM

Report message to a moderator

Re: Meeting minutes for Nov 2, 2005 [message #3671 is a reply to message #3606]

Thu, 03 November 2005 09:47

Eclipse User

Originally posted by: thomas.bailey.sonyericsson.com

Thanks David for hosting this meeting and keeping minutes.

- eXtensible Emulator Interface (XEI?)

I think a key suggestion we hit upon was each WTK licencee could provide a
binary UEI interface within there respective SDK which would sit upon XEI
therefore avoiding all legal issues - I even think this might well be
better than even engaging legal people in the question of if it can be in
MTJ and generally having any gray area.

I think Arto mentioned Nokia had already extended UEI to better fit there
CDC requirements and, given Symbian 9 / platsec, if would seem we might
end up going very vendor specific routes anyrate so beyond any legal
questions perhaps this is a natural route.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Meeting minutes for Nov 2, 2005 [message #3741 is a reply to message #3671]

Mon, 07 November 2005 01:44

No real name

Messages: 42
Registered: July 2009

Member

The kicker is really, what rights does anyone have to ship any
"implementation" of the UEI framework? Especially if we're going to
include it in an open source project, which by nature exposes source
code, therefore, in a roundablut way, publishing the interface that is
goverened by the Sun license.

I think the real issue here is can we ship an UEI framework in MTJ, into
which vendor SDKs/emulators can sit on, or should/can we ship a binary
implementation of it in MTJ, can will that break Eclipse rules, and/or
do we do an XEI-like idea, but then how do we support UEI emulator
clients in it without the same issues as above? Sure, we'd be able to
legally extend functionality in XEI since it would be ours, but what
about supporting UEI emulators, and how we get around this legal mess.

Sheesh, I have degrees in Computer Science, not law - wish this lisence
stuff would vanish <grin>

Dave

Thomas Bailey wrote:
> Thanks David for hosting this meeting and keeping minutes.
>
> - eXtensible Emulator Interface (XEI?)
> I think a key suggestion we hit upon was each WTK licencee could provide
> a binary UEI interface within there respective SDK which would sit upon
> XEI therefore avoiding all legal issues - I even think this might well
> be better than even engaging legal people in the question of if it can
> be in MTJ and generally having any gray area.
> I think Arto mentioned Nokia had already extended UEI to better fit
> there CDC requirements and, given Symbian 9 / platsec, if would seem we
> might end up going very vendor specific routes anyrate so beyond any
> legal questions perhaps this is a natural route.

Report message to a moderator