[stp-dev] transcript of IRC 8 March 06

[Oisin Hurley <ohurley@xxxxxxxx>]

dparikh joined the chat room.
[16:44] DavidBosschaert left the chat room. ("Trillian (http:// 
www.ceruleanstudios.com")
[16:44] DavidBosschaert joined the chat room.
[16:58] boisvert joined the chat room.
[17:02] sdaume joined the chat room.
[17:03] AMiguel joined the chat room.
[17:03] oisin: hi all
[17:03] boisvert: howdy!
[17:03] sdaume: hi guys
[17:04] AMiguel: hi
[17:05] sdaume: Oisin, as a first agenda item I would like to ask you  
to clarify some of the PMC changes
[17:06] oisin: ok - it's a little confusing!
[17:06] sdaume: maybe I will just put forward a few specific questions
[17:06] oisin: currently on the PMC are:  Oisin Hurley, Alain Boulze,  
Karl Reti, Carl Trieloff
[17:07] sdaume: Ok, I got the impression Carl is not on the PMC anymore
[17:07] sdaume: ?
[17:08] oisin: there are a couple of issues
[17:08] sdaume: fire away
[17:08] oisin: 1. to be not on the PMC Carl will need to formally resign
[17:10] oisin: 2. afaik he has done that, but for the moment he stays  
on because EclipseCon has taken up the time of the EMO and staff
[17:11] oisin: 3. I need to meet with Bjorn, the process director, at  
EclipseCon and do a formal introduction
[17:11] sdaume: so who is PMC lead now ?
[17:11] oisin: that's my role
[17:11] sdaume: ok
[17:12] oisin: I will take an action item to get an accurate  
statement out to the list
[17:13] sdaume: if possible, could you tell us how those changes came  
about ? I didn't see anything about this on the PMC mailing list
[17:14] oisin: (just checking my mail)
[17:15] oisin: yes you are correct, there was no discussion on the  
mailing list
[17:16] oisin: instead the mailing went directly to the PMC  
individuals and Bjorn
[17:17] oisin: are you on the list stefan?
[17:17] sdaume: I am
[17:20] oisin: the reason I ask is that Bjorn had to do some  
maintenance work on it recently -- just checking that no-one got  
accidentally bumped from it
[17:20] oisin: stefan, did you receive the emails regarding call  
scheduling etc today?
[17:21] sdaume: i did
[17:24] oisin: I will send my contact details to the list -- feel  
free to give me a call at any point (GMT
[17:25] oisin: any other q's?
[17:27] oisin: I've a couple of things (1) the Corona project, (2)  
the service creation subproject 'architecture' sent to stp-dev
[17:27] boisvert: can somebody introduce the Corona project, i'm not  
familiar with it
[17:28] oisin: http://www.eclipse.org/proposals/corona/
[17:28] oisin: it bills itself as the 'Tools Services Framework'
[17:28] oisin: I was on the creation review today
[17:29] oisin: At this point in time I readily admit I don't  
understand half of it.
[17:29] oisin: However, they see some overlap with STP
[17:29] oisin: The one thing that I took from the creation review is  
that they are basically exposing eclipse extension points as web  
services
[17:30] oisin: I think that the tie-in to our tooling is probably at  
the point of importing the interface offered by an extension point to  
make a contract and then perhaps doing a 'deployment' into the eclips\
e install
[17:31] oisin: They have been encouraged to have a BOF-style thing at  
eclipsecon, which might be fun to attend - especially since there was  
hints of mexican beer being supplied
[17:33] boisvert: ok, thanks
[17:33] oisin: Did any of you guys get a chance to check out the SC  
skeleton I sent to the dev list?
[17:34] oisin: Please don't be shy about feedback
[17:34] oisin:
[17:34] boisvert: so my question would be how would we go about  
working with the corona project?
[17:34] boisvert: are you suggesting that eclipsecon would be the  
venue for some kind of kickoff discussion?
[17:35] oisin: I think it would be good to get a bit of context with  
them before then.
[17:36] oisin: I would suggest that we have an IRC meet or a concall  
this week or early next week
[17:36] oisin: then we would be in a better position to talk details  
at eclipsecon
[17:37] oisin: what do you think?
[17:37] boisvert: yes, i sure would be interested in better  
understanding their intents
[17:37] sdaume: that would good. i suggest early next week
[17:38] boisvert: maybe we could substitute next week's STP IRC chat  
with a chat w/ corrona
[17:38] oisin: what about mon/tues?
[17:38] oisin: [for selfish reasons - I'm not available wed/thu/fri]
[17:39] sdaume: monday
[17:40] oisin: gimme the plus ones minus ones guys
[17:40] oisin: +1
[17:40] DavidBosschaert: Either Monday/Tuesday is fine +1
[17:40] boisvert: monday/tuesday +1
[17:40] oisin: ok I will get in touch with the lead and propose we  
have a session on this channel.
[17:41] boisvert: wonderful
[17:41] sdaume: maybe a conf call would be better for this ?
[17:42] oisin: I'm open to either approach - we can provide the bridge
[17:42] boisvert: i'm open to both as well
[17:42] oisin: right we'll see what the corona chaps can do, leave it  
with me.
[17:42] sdaume: I guess an introduction and overview of the Corona  
project is easier delivered in a conf call
[17:43] oisin: it's the question throughtput that is the key part
[17:44] oisin: ok - have we got anything else to bring up?
[17:44] dparikh: I have a question about SC skeleton.
[17:44] dparikh: Is it possible to use WSDL as contract model ?
[17:44] oisin: ask away - can you introduce yourself too, please, I  
don't recognise the nick!
[17:45] oisin: I think using WSDL as the contract model is one  
perfectly acceptable approach
[17:45] dparikh: sure I am Devang Parikh. I work with Dan Berg on STP  
Core Framework
[17:45] oisin: Hi Devang!
[17:45] dparikh: hey
[17:46] dparikh: Since many implementation uses WSDL to describe  
their interface or have clear mapping to WSDL,
[17:46] dparikh: they will not have to create mapping to another  
contract model.
[17:46] boisvert: one of the challenge these days is to model  
'listener' type interactions through WSDL
[17:47] dparikh: last I check WTP had EMF model for WSDL.
[17:47] boisvert: not that you can't model these interactions, but  
mostly that almost no tools seem to support the necessary MEPs and  
they fall out of the interop standards
[17:47] oisin: I think that a key requirement of the contract model  
is that it can produce WSDL - whether or not the in-memory model is  
WSDL is not that important
[17:48] boisvert: ok, that i can see working in the not too distant  
future
[17:48] sdaume: oisin are you proposing to create an EMF-based  
contract model from scratch
[17:49] sdaume: that will have mappings to specific contract  
languages like WSDL
[17:49] oisin: I'm personally inclined an EMF model, purely because  
we can get some freebies in terms of generating the basis for the  
notification etc
[17:50] dparikh: I agree that we should use EMF model. My question is  
can we use WSDL EMF model from WTP ?
[17:51] sdaume: so the WSDL EMF model is the contract model ?
[17:51] dparikh: yes that is what i am thinking.
[17:51] sdaume: I think this is to restrictive
[17:51] oisin: Is the WSDL EMF model purposed just to WSDL?
[17:52] oisin: I'm with stefan on this -- I think we should put in  
place something that doesn't attempt to meta-model world+dog but will  
give us something from which we can easily address a wsdl requirement.
[17:53] sdaume: question is will we have a meta-model to build on or  
do we have to define this from scratch
[17:54] boisvert: i would also hope we can reuse the WSDL EMF model  
for something like this
[17:54] oisin: we should certainly do a real review of the WSDL EMF  
model and see what is missing in our opinions
[17:54] oisin: we should also be informed by other contract languages  
that we know
[17:55] dparikh: yes that will be good to see what we will have to  
add/enhance on WSDL model
[17:55] dparikh: *WSDL EMF model
[17:56] oisin: from my perspective there are two primary requirements  
of the model -- it must be transformable to WSDL (1.1 and 2.0) and it  
must be extensible
[17:57] boisvert: Guys, I just noticed Karl Reti's EclipseCon  
presentation on the STP project at http://eclipsezilla.eclipsecon.org/ 
eclipsezilla/php/attachment.php?bugid=235
[17:58] boisvert: when we are done discussing the SC skeleton, i'd  
like to ask a few questions
[17:59] oisin: can we take the skel discussion to the list? I suggest  
that we all pile in and list our requirements of the contract model.  
I know for a fact that the gentlemen from sybase, who are not on this\
discussion, have some prior in this area.
[18:00] dparikh: yep. let's discuss this on list
[18:00] oisin: any objections?
[18:01] oisin: not seeing any: alex do you want to go with the  
questions?
[18:01] boisvert: not at all, i don't feel like i know enough about  
the WSDL EMF model now to make good judment
[18:01] oisin: I mean the questions you had for after the SC skel  
discussion
[18:01] boisvert: ok, so about Karl's presentation, i see the slide  
about "Alignment with SCA"
[18:01] oisin: slide number/
[18:01] oisin: ?
[18:02] oisin: 15
[18:02] boisvert: yes
[18:02] boisvert: slide 15
[18:02] oisin: ok go for it
[18:03] boisvert: and i'm wondering how that relates/impacts similar  
model like JBI for deployment, etc
[18:03] boisvert: my most important concern being that I don't see  
JBI mentioned explicitly anywhere else
[18:04] oisin: this was a big discussion item at the F2F -- there was  
a not heated but slightly warm exchange
[18:04] dparikh left the chat room. ("Chatzilla 0.9.72 [Firefox  
1.0.7/20050915]")
[18:04] AMiguel left the chat room. ("Chatzilla 0.9.70 [Firefox  
1.5.0.1/2006011112]")
[18:05] oisin: the logicblaze guys are JBI all the way and were not  
too keen on an SCA based thing
[18:05] boisvert: understood
[18:06] boisvert: so there is interest in JBI support as well?
[18:06] oisin: they were assured that the SCA Assembly model is  
transformable to JBI
[18:06] boisvert: ok, that's good to know
[18:06] oisin: There was a whiteboard discussion between the aligned  
parties IBM/BEA and ObjectWeb/LogicBlaze
[18:07] oisin: JBI is not out of scope
[18:07] boisvert: i'll take this as assumption right now
[18:07] sdaume: I think it was agreed that extension points needed to  
be defined for that ?
[18:07] oisin: stefan is correct
[18:07] oisin: the nature of the solution however is not clear
[18:07] oisin: at this point in time
[18:07] boisvert: right, ok, so health discussion around supporting both
[18:08] boisvert: (healthy)
[18:08] oisin: oh yes.
[18:08] boisvert: that's good to hear
[18:08] oisin: I suggest, alex, that you might send a mail to this  
effect to the list to see who the interested
[18:08] boisvert: that's all the question i have about the  
presentation right now
[18:08] oisin: parties are...
[18:08] boisvert: sure
[18:08] oisin: we need to get discussion going on that topic too.
[18:09] oisin: ok. we're a little over time, is there anything else  
we got to talk about?
[18:09] sdaume: particularly with the changes in SCA
[18:09] oisin: tracking SCA is something that we will be actively doing.
[18:10] boisvert: nothing on my side
[18:10] DavidBosschaert left the chat room.
[18:10] oisin: ok let's call it day so
[18:11] boisvert: alright, thanks guys
[18:11] oisin: thanks
[18:11] sdaume: bye