Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [] November 7th Conference call agenda

Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend today's meeting.

John Graham
Staff Software Engineer
Sybase, Inc.
telephone: (978) 287-1634  (GMT - 5)
e-mail: john.graham@xxxxxxxxxx

             Harm Sluiman                                                  
             om>                                                        To 
             Sent by:                  ""  
             ounces@xxxxxxxxxx                                          cc 
             11/08/2005 07:48          []  
             AM                        November 7th Conference       call  
             Please respond to                                             

I missed last months call (totally miss the window for the homework ;-))
and can't make it today, but I would like to make a few comments in the
spirit of trying to get some threads going in the mailing list.

I think the path of blockitecture that shows functional areas of a project
and the inner and interdependencies on other blocks is the top level to
start with. Perhaps the blocks are like super features., and can be drilled
into to see plug-in cross dependancies. This is where we started last year,
and how we structured the TPTP pages, but we did not get consistency across
projects. This can define technical structure.

I think Wenfeng's idea bring this structure to the human level, and writing
some functional use cases that span projects is a good thing, although hard
at times. I believe each project should commit to some viewlets/flash walk
throughs of their project functional area. Most are doing this. On top of
that there are some walk throughs that can span projects without show all
the intricate details of each. I know that doing a TPTP centric demo that
crosses WTP, JDT, TPTP and BIRT positioning goes over very well with users
and developers alike. I am creating a viewlet that does this now, and would
encourage other leads to try the same intentional effort, if for no reason
but to force awareness of cross project collaboration potential.

In the past the only way I have seen successful cross big project
demo/architectures etc. is when a single person is given the job to deliver
it. I am not sure we have such a person in this case so the best efforts of
many seem to have to do ;-)

Thanks for your time.
Harm Sluiman, STSM,
phone:905-413-4032   fax: 4920
cell: 1-647-300-4758
Admin : Arlene Treanor atreanor@xxxxxxxxxx  Tie: 969-2323 1-905-413-2323

 Bjorn Freeman-Benson                                                      
 >                                                                      To 
 Sent by:                                         uncil@xxxxxxxxxxx           
 bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx                                                    cc 
 11/08/2005 01:11 AM                           [ 
                                               ouncil] November 7th        
                                               Conference call             
         Please respond to                     agenda                      

Monthly Architecture Council Conference Call
Second Tuesday of each month, 8am PST, 11am EST
or   866.362.7064
passcode 874551#
1.        Changing the call time/date in Q1? A number of people cannot make
the second Tuesday of each month calls, so shall we try a different day
and/or time in Q1?
2.        Outline what we want to have in the Architecture Council section
of the Roadmap. We need to collectively decide what we want to show for our
time this year - what sort of documentation of the current architecture are
we (which mostly means you all) willing to spend time writing for the end
of the year? The answer might be (disappointingly) "very little", but now
is the time to step up to the task or to state definitely that we won't be
doing much.
      Last month we decided "We discussed what we should be creating for
      the architecture diagram for the Roadmap. Is it a summary of the
      current state? Is it a discussion of the future and forward looking
      architecture? Is it useful to the existing projects or is it just
      seen as a waste of time providing no benefit to the teams? We
      concluded that we needed to have documentation of the existing
      architecture before we could do anything more forward looking so we
      resolved (ok, ok, Bjorn browbeat everyone into agreeing) to spend a
      half-hour writing up their current view of the Eclipse Platform
      architecture.  These emails might provoke discussion on our mailing
      list, plus Bjorn is going to merge these all into a discussion
      document for our next call."
3.        Using our decision for (2) we will review our inputs from the
last meeting and decide what we can do next to produce the Roadmap. The
inputs from the last meeting were very varied:
      David Williams: documents and diagrams showing the dependencies
      between WTP subsystems
      Richard Gronback: list of subsystems across Eclipse
      John Graham: traditional boxes view of subsystems seen by DTP
      Bjorn Freeman-Benson: list of subsystems across Eclipse
      Kevin Haaland: list of sub-projects and plug-ins and key components
      in the Platform
      Wenfeng Li: list of subsystems across Eclipse grouped by scenarios:
      tools, designer, deployment
      Kai Nyman: agreed with Wenfeng about using use-case scenario-based
      architecture diagrams
      Tim Wagner: no input
      Michael Scharf: no input
4.        Finally, we will talk about agenda items for the Council
      The Lattix folks have offered to come to the Council meetings and
      show us what they have been extracting of the Eclipse architecture
      using their tools.
_______________________________________________ mailing list
_______________________________________________ mailing list

Back to the top