You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to soap-dev@xml.apache.org by Glen Daniels <gd...@allaire.com> on 2000/11/22 17:46:14 UTC
Terminology, requirements, and the F2F meeting
Hi all!
Clearly, a bunch of the different proposals and architecture ideas that are
out there have some different ways of describing very similar concepts. I
think one of the main purposes of the F2F meeting is going to be to allow
the proponents of the various ideas to discuss them in real-time, and
hopefully come to a common design that the whole team agrees on.
With that in mind, I'd like to propose the following schedule for
consideration.
PRE-MEETING
-----------
Work on requirements, and try to nail them down
Review extant architecture/design proposals
MEETING AGENDA
--------------
o Introductions / review agenda (10 min)
o Review and discuss requirements (25 min)
o Architecture overviews (90 min?)
<break>
o Discussion of architecture proposals,
terminology, and hopefully coming to
a consensus on a design (rest of available time)
POST-MEETING
------------
o Adjourn to nearby bar, and consume good alcohol :)
o Write up meeting, summarize to list
o Write up consensus architecture
o Discussion of next steps (initial coding, division of labor, etc)
Some notes:
As suggested by Sanjiva, I've put in a bunch of time for the authors of the
various architecture specs to present their ideas to the group. I figure if
we each take about 20 minutes, it shouldn't be ridiculously long - also,
there will be a good bit of overlap, so that will help speed things up too.
At present, I believe it would be good to have presentations from -
Yuhichi/Ryo, Steve, James, and Glen. Are there others who would like to
present as well?
The idea of this schedule is to focus on what I mentioned in the 1st
paragraph, useful discussion geared towards resolving the differences in the
various proposals for the 3.0 architecture. I think the requirements should
be worked on ahead of time to provide us with a good framework within which
we can operate.
I also explicitly removed all the discussion about next steps from the
actual meeting agenda, since I think just discussing the architecture is a
big enough bite to chew. I do expect some of this type of discussion to
occur while we're together, but I don't want to count on it. If we end up
discussing it at the bar or on Thursday, that's grand.
So - what do you all think?
--Glen
Re: Terminology, requirements, and the F2F meeting
Posted by Jean-Noel Gadreau <jn...@activcard.com>.
Sounds a good plan to me.
Regards,
Jean-Noel
Glen Daniels wrote:
>
> Hi all!
>
> Clearly, a bunch of the different proposals and architecture ideas that are
> out there have some different ways of describing very similar concepts. I
> think one of the main purposes of the F2F meeting is going to be to allow
> the proponents of the various ideas to discuss them in real-time, and
> hopefully come to a common design that the whole team agrees on.
>
> With that in mind, I'd like to propose the following schedule for
> consideration.
>
> PRE-MEETING
> -----------
> Work on requirements, and try to nail them down
> Review extant architecture/design proposals
>
> MEETING AGENDA
> --------------
> o Introductions / review agenda (10 min)
> o Review and discuss requirements (25 min)
> o Architecture overviews (90 min?)
> <break>
> o Discussion of architecture proposals,
> terminology, and hopefully coming to
> a consensus on a design (rest of available time)
>
> POST-MEETING
> ------------
> o Adjourn to nearby bar, and consume good alcohol :)
> o Write up meeting, summarize to list
> o Write up consensus architecture
> o Discussion of next steps (initial coding, division of labor, etc)
>
> Some notes:
>
> As suggested by Sanjiva, I've put in a bunch of time for the authors of the
> various architecture specs to present their ideas to the group. I figure if
> we each take about 20 minutes, it shouldn't be ridiculously long - also,
> there will be a good bit of overlap, so that will help speed things up too.
> At present, I believe it would be good to have presentations from -
> Yuhichi/Ryo, Steve, James, and Glen. Are there others who would like to
> present as well?
>
> The idea of this schedule is to focus on what I mentioned in the 1st
> paragraph, useful discussion geared towards resolving the differences in the
> various proposals for the 3.0 architecture. I think the requirements should
> be worked on ahead of time to provide us with a good framework within which
> we can operate.
>
> I also explicitly removed all the discussion about next steps from the
> actual meeting agenda, since I think just discussing the architecture is a
> big enough bite to chew. I do expect some of this type of discussion to
> occur while we're together, but I don't want to count on it. If we end up
> discussing it at the bar or on Thursday, that's grand.
>
> So - what do you all think?
>
> --Glen
Re: Terminology, requirements, and the F2F meeting
Posted by Jean-Noel Gadreau <jn...@activcard.com>.
I would also propose that if someone has a digital camera, it is great
to take a picture of a white board, rather than spending time to write
it down. Anybody that can bring a camera ?
Jean-Noel
Glen Daniels wrote:
>
> Two quick points re: the meeting, both in regards to the fact that there
> will be some people who can't make it.
>
> 1) We should be trying to take notes on everything we talk about so we can
> write it up and post it to the list. Any volunteers to act as scribes?
>
> 2) Even if the attendees come to a consensus on the architecture they'd like
> to see in 3.0, the full set of committers (including those not able to
> attend the meeting) will have to vote on it before it's "carved in stone".
>
> --Glen
Re: Terminology, requirements, and the F2F meeting
Posted by Jean-Noel Gadreau <jn...@activcard.com>.
I would also propose that if someone has a digital camera, it is great
to take a picture of a white board, rather than spending time to write
it down. Anybody that can bring a camera ?
Jean-Noel
Glen Daniels wrote:
>
> Two quick points re: the meeting, both in regards to the fact that there
> will be some people who can't make it.
>
> 1) We should be trying to take notes on everything we talk about so we can
> write it up and post it to the list. Any volunteers to act as scribes?
>
> 2) Even if the attendees come to a consensus on the architecture they'd like
> to see in 3.0, the full set of committers (including those not able to
> attend the meeting) will have to vote on it before it's "carved in stone".
>
> --Glen
Re: Terminology, requirements, and the F2F meeting
Posted by Glen Daniels <gd...@allaire.com>.
Two quick points re: the meeting, both in regards to the fact that there
will be some people who can't make it.
1) We should be trying to take notes on everything we talk about so we can
write it up and post it to the list. Any volunteers to act as scribes?
2) Even if the attendees come to a consensus on the architecture they'd like
to see in 3.0, the full set of committers (including those not able to
attend the meeting) will have to vote on it before it's "carved in stone".
--Glen
Re: Terminology, requirements, and the F2F meeting
Posted by Glen Daniels <gd...@allaire.com>.
Two quick points re: the meeting, both in regards to the fact that there
will be some people who can't make it.
1) We should be trying to take notes on everything we talk about so we can
write it up and post it to the list. Any volunteers to act as scribes?
2) Even if the attendees come to a consensus on the architecture they'd like
to see in 3.0, the full set of committers (including those not able to
attend the meeting) will have to vote on it before it's "carved in stone".
--Glen
Re: Terminology, requirements, and the F2F meeting
Posted by Jean-Noel Gadreau <jn...@activcard.com>.
Sounds a good plan to me.
Regards,
Jean-Noel
Glen Daniels wrote:
>
> Hi all!
>
> Clearly, a bunch of the different proposals and architecture ideas that are
> out there have some different ways of describing very similar concepts. I
> think one of the main purposes of the F2F meeting is going to be to allow
> the proponents of the various ideas to discuss them in real-time, and
> hopefully come to a common design that the whole team agrees on.
>
> With that in mind, I'd like to propose the following schedule for
> consideration.
>
> PRE-MEETING
> -----------
> Work on requirements, and try to nail them down
> Review extant architecture/design proposals
>
> MEETING AGENDA
> --------------
> o Introductions / review agenda (10 min)
> o Review and discuss requirements (25 min)
> o Architecture overviews (90 min?)
> <break>
> o Discussion of architecture proposals,
> terminology, and hopefully coming to
> a consensus on a design (rest of available time)
>
> POST-MEETING
> ------------
> o Adjourn to nearby bar, and consume good alcohol :)
> o Write up meeting, summarize to list
> o Write up consensus architecture
> o Discussion of next steps (initial coding, division of labor, etc)
>
> Some notes:
>
> As suggested by Sanjiva, I've put in a bunch of time for the authors of the
> various architecture specs to present their ideas to the group. I figure if
> we each take about 20 minutes, it shouldn't be ridiculously long - also,
> there will be a good bit of overlap, so that will help speed things up too.
> At present, I believe it would be good to have presentations from -
> Yuhichi/Ryo, Steve, James, and Glen. Are there others who would like to
> present as well?
>
> The idea of this schedule is to focus on what I mentioned in the 1st
> paragraph, useful discussion geared towards resolving the differences in the
> various proposals for the 3.0 architecture. I think the requirements should
> be worked on ahead of time to provide us with a good framework within which
> we can operate.
>
> I also explicitly removed all the discussion about next steps from the
> actual meeting agenda, since I think just discussing the architecture is a
> big enough bite to chew. I do expect some of this type of discussion to
> occur while we're together, but I don't want to count on it. If we end up
> discussing it at the bar or on Thursday, that's grand.
>
> So - what do you all think?
>
> --Glen
Re: Terminology, requirements, and the F2F meeting
Posted by Jean-Noel Gadreau <jn...@activcard.com>.
I think it could be a good idea to have a presentation of PDOM. That
could clarify things on what it is, how it will work and what it brings.
Just as a side note, I think it should remain "another DOM
implementation" that can be used in AXIS, so that we can start on
existing DOM, and then later, change the parser (I guess we want to have
parser independance as a req.) and use the PDOM implementation when it
is ready.
Jean-Noel
Jacek Kopecky wrote:
>
> Hi. 8-)
> Unless Progressive DOM is clear to everybody and we all agree on
> using it, I'd like to have a little time to give an overview of how
> and when we can use PDOM and how we can easily overcome the lack of an
> implementation thereof. 8-)
> This thing should improve performance heavily when handling big
> streamable requests while it should bring virtually no negative
> impact.
> It can be viewed as an implementation detail though, so if there's
> little time, we can skip this. 8-)
>
> Jacek Kopecky
> Idoox
>
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Glen Daniels wrote:
>
> > Hi all!
> >
> > Clearly, a bunch of the different proposals and architecture ideas that are
> > out there have some different ways of describing very similar concepts. I
> > think one of the main purposes of the F2F meeting is going to be to allow
> > the proponents of the various ideas to discuss them in real-time, and
> > hopefully come to a common design that the whole team agrees on.
> >
> > With that in mind, I'd like to propose the following schedule for
> > consideration.
> >
> > PRE-MEETING
> > -----------
> > Work on requirements, and try to nail them down
> > Review extant architecture/design proposals
> >
> > MEETING AGENDA
> > --------------
> > o Introductions / review agenda (10 min)
> > o Review and discuss requirements (25 min)
> > o Architecture overviews (90 min?)
> > <break>
> > o Discussion of architecture proposals,
> > terminology, and hopefully coming to
> > a consensus on a design (rest of available time)
> >
> > POST-MEETING
> > ------------
> > o Adjourn to nearby bar, and consume good alcohol :)
> > o Write up meeting, summarize to list
> > o Write up consensus architecture
> > o Discussion of next steps (initial coding, division of labor, etc)
> >
> > Some notes:
> >
> > As suggested by Sanjiva, I've put in a bunch of time for the authors of the
> > various architecture specs to present their ideas to the group. I figure if
> > we each take about 20 minutes, it shouldn't be ridiculously long - also,
> > there will be a good bit of overlap, so that will help speed things up too.
> > At present, I believe it would be good to have presentations from -
> > Yuhichi/Ryo, Steve, James, and Glen. Are there others who would like to
> > present as well?
> >
> > The idea of this schedule is to focus on what I mentioned in the 1st
> > paragraph, useful discussion geared towards resolving the differences in the
> > various proposals for the 3.0 architecture. I think the requirements should
> > be worked on ahead of time to provide us with a good framework within which
> > we can operate.
> >
> > I also explicitly removed all the discussion about next steps from the
> > actual meeting agenda, since I think just discussing the architecture is a
> > big enough bite to chew. I do expect some of this type of discussion to
> > occur while we're together, but I don't want to count on it. If we end up
> > discussing it at the bar or on Thursday, that's grand.
> >
> > So - what do you all think?
> >
> > --Glen
> >
> >
Re: Terminology, requirements, and the F2F meeting
Posted by Jean-Noel Gadreau <jn...@activcard.com>.
I think it could be a good idea to have a presentation of PDOM. That
could clarify things on what it is, how it will work and what it brings.
Just as a side note, I think it should remain "another DOM
implementation" that can be used in AXIS, so that we can start on
existing DOM, and then later, change the parser (I guess we want to have
parser independance as a req.) and use the PDOM implementation when it
is ready.
Jean-Noel
Jacek Kopecky wrote:
>
> Hi. 8-)
> Unless Progressive DOM is clear to everybody and we all agree on
> using it, I'd like to have a little time to give an overview of how
> and when we can use PDOM and how we can easily overcome the lack of an
> implementation thereof. 8-)
> This thing should improve performance heavily when handling big
> streamable requests while it should bring virtually no negative
> impact.
> It can be viewed as an implementation detail though, so if there's
> little time, we can skip this. 8-)
>
> Jacek Kopecky
> Idoox
>
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Glen Daniels wrote:
>
> > Hi all!
> >
> > Clearly, a bunch of the different proposals and architecture ideas that are
> > out there have some different ways of describing very similar concepts. I
> > think one of the main purposes of the F2F meeting is going to be to allow
> > the proponents of the various ideas to discuss them in real-time, and
> > hopefully come to a common design that the whole team agrees on.
> >
> > With that in mind, I'd like to propose the following schedule for
> > consideration.
> >
> > PRE-MEETING
> > -----------
> > Work on requirements, and try to nail them down
> > Review extant architecture/design proposals
> >
> > MEETING AGENDA
> > --------------
> > o Introductions / review agenda (10 min)
> > o Review and discuss requirements (25 min)
> > o Architecture overviews (90 min?)
> > <break>
> > o Discussion of architecture proposals,
> > terminology, and hopefully coming to
> > a consensus on a design (rest of available time)
> >
> > POST-MEETING
> > ------------
> > o Adjourn to nearby bar, and consume good alcohol :)
> > o Write up meeting, summarize to list
> > o Write up consensus architecture
> > o Discussion of next steps (initial coding, division of labor, etc)
> >
> > Some notes:
> >
> > As suggested by Sanjiva, I've put in a bunch of time for the authors of the
> > various architecture specs to present their ideas to the group. I figure if
> > we each take about 20 minutes, it shouldn't be ridiculously long - also,
> > there will be a good bit of overlap, so that will help speed things up too.
> > At present, I believe it would be good to have presentations from -
> > Yuhichi/Ryo, Steve, James, and Glen. Are there others who would like to
> > present as well?
> >
> > The idea of this schedule is to focus on what I mentioned in the 1st
> > paragraph, useful discussion geared towards resolving the differences in the
> > various proposals for the 3.0 architecture. I think the requirements should
> > be worked on ahead of time to provide us with a good framework within which
> > we can operate.
> >
> > I also explicitly removed all the discussion about next steps from the
> > actual meeting agenda, since I think just discussing the architecture is a
> > big enough bite to chew. I do expect some of this type of discussion to
> > occur while we're together, but I don't want to count on it. If we end up
> > discussing it at the bar or on Thursday, that's grand.
> >
> > So - what do you all think?
> >
> > --Glen
> >
> >
Re: Terminology, requirements, and the F2F meeting
Posted by Jacek Kopecky <ja...@idoox.com>.
Hi. 8-)
Unless Progressive DOM is clear to everybody and we all agree on
using it, I'd like to have a little time to give an overview of how
and when we can use PDOM and how we can easily overcome the lack of an
implementation thereof. 8-)
This thing should improve performance heavily when handling big
streamable requests while it should bring virtually no negative
impact.
It can be viewed as an implementation detail though, so if there's
little time, we can skip this. 8-)
Jacek Kopecky
Idoox
On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Glen Daniels wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> Clearly, a bunch of the different proposals and architecture ideas that are
> out there have some different ways of describing very similar concepts. I
> think one of the main purposes of the F2F meeting is going to be to allow
> the proponents of the various ideas to discuss them in real-time, and
> hopefully come to a common design that the whole team agrees on.
>
> With that in mind, I'd like to propose the following schedule for
> consideration.
>
> PRE-MEETING
> -----------
> Work on requirements, and try to nail them down
> Review extant architecture/design proposals
>
> MEETING AGENDA
> --------------
> o Introductions / review agenda (10 min)
> o Review and discuss requirements (25 min)
> o Architecture overviews (90 min?)
> <break>
> o Discussion of architecture proposals,
> terminology, and hopefully coming to
> a consensus on a design (rest of available time)
>
> POST-MEETING
> ------------
> o Adjourn to nearby bar, and consume good alcohol :)
> o Write up meeting, summarize to list
> o Write up consensus architecture
> o Discussion of next steps (initial coding, division of labor, etc)
>
> Some notes:
>
> As suggested by Sanjiva, I've put in a bunch of time for the authors of the
> various architecture specs to present their ideas to the group. I figure if
> we each take about 20 minutes, it shouldn't be ridiculously long - also,
> there will be a good bit of overlap, so that will help speed things up too.
> At present, I believe it would be good to have presentations from -
> Yuhichi/Ryo, Steve, James, and Glen. Are there others who would like to
> present as well?
>
> The idea of this schedule is to focus on what I mentioned in the 1st
> paragraph, useful discussion geared towards resolving the differences in the
> various proposals for the 3.0 architecture. I think the requirements should
> be worked on ahead of time to provide us with a good framework within which
> we can operate.
>
> I also explicitly removed all the discussion about next steps from the
> actual meeting agenda, since I think just discussing the architecture is a
> big enough bite to chew. I do expect some of this type of discussion to
> occur while we're together, but I don't want to count on it. If we end up
> discussing it at the bar or on Thursday, that's grand.
>
> So - what do you all think?
>
> --Glen
>
>
Re: Terminology, requirements, and the F2F meeting
Posted by Jacek Kopecky <ja...@idoox.com>.
Hi. 8-)
Unless Progressive DOM is clear to everybody and we all agree on
using it, I'd like to have a little time to give an overview of how
and when we can use PDOM and how we can easily overcome the lack of an
implementation thereof. 8-)
This thing should improve performance heavily when handling big
streamable requests while it should bring virtually no negative
impact.
It can be viewed as an implementation detail though, so if there's
little time, we can skip this. 8-)
Jacek Kopecky
Idoox
On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Glen Daniels wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> Clearly, a bunch of the different proposals and architecture ideas that are
> out there have some different ways of describing very similar concepts. I
> think one of the main purposes of the F2F meeting is going to be to allow
> the proponents of the various ideas to discuss them in real-time, and
> hopefully come to a common design that the whole team agrees on.
>
> With that in mind, I'd like to propose the following schedule for
> consideration.
>
> PRE-MEETING
> -----------
> Work on requirements, and try to nail them down
> Review extant architecture/design proposals
>
> MEETING AGENDA
> --------------
> o Introductions / review agenda (10 min)
> o Review and discuss requirements (25 min)
> o Architecture overviews (90 min?)
> <break>
> o Discussion of architecture proposals,
> terminology, and hopefully coming to
> a consensus on a design (rest of available time)
>
> POST-MEETING
> ------------
> o Adjourn to nearby bar, and consume good alcohol :)
> o Write up meeting, summarize to list
> o Write up consensus architecture
> o Discussion of next steps (initial coding, division of labor, etc)
>
> Some notes:
>
> As suggested by Sanjiva, I've put in a bunch of time for the authors of the
> various architecture specs to present their ideas to the group. I figure if
> we each take about 20 minutes, it shouldn't be ridiculously long - also,
> there will be a good bit of overlap, so that will help speed things up too.
> At present, I believe it would be good to have presentations from -
> Yuhichi/Ryo, Steve, James, and Glen. Are there others who would like to
> present as well?
>
> The idea of this schedule is to focus on what I mentioned in the 1st
> paragraph, useful discussion geared towards resolving the differences in the
> various proposals for the 3.0 architecture. I think the requirements should
> be worked on ahead of time to provide us with a good framework within which
> we can operate.
>
> I also explicitly removed all the discussion about next steps from the
> actual meeting agenda, since I think just discussing the architecture is a
> big enough bite to chew. I do expect some of this type of discussion to
> occur while we're together, but I don't want to count on it. If we end up
> discussing it at the bar or on Thursday, that's grand.
>
> So - what do you all think?
>
> --Glen
>
>