Revision as of 00:56, 28 April 2010

Date: 2010-04-28
Time: 7AM GMT
Venue: irc #adempiere-team
Support Spreadsheet: Adempiere PMC Architecture
Chat times in GMT+2

Agenda

• Review wishlist (reordered): I see 4 "areas" of work in the gigh prio topics:
  • Migration stability #8,9,27
  • OSGi #1,25,29
  • Security #11
  • Performance #2,7 (already tackled)
• Proposal:
  • Create a "project" for each and concentrate work there
  • Add corresponding tasks to task list
• Review
  • 8 weeks are over: Can we improve PMC Arch Group somehow?
  • Are we doing the right things?
• Proposal:
  • Start an OI inquiry: What is required to make ADempiere easily salesable?
  • add results to wish list

Summary

Chat

[08:55] viola: good morning
[08:55] bcahya hat den Chatroom verlassen. (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
[08:57] hengsin_ hat den Chatroom betreten.
[08:57] hengsin_: hi
[08:57] viola: hello!
[08:58] hengsin_: hi Jorg, just curious, do you own ObjectCode or you just work there ?
[08:59] viola: I own it together with three friends of mine
[08:59] phib hat den Chatroom betreten.
[08:59] viola: what about you?
[09:00] hengsin_: I run a team here ( Malaysia ) for Idalica Copr, US
[09:00] hengsin hat den Chatroom verlassen. (Ping timeout: 265 seconds)
[09:00] viola: aha how big is the team?
[09:00] hengsin_ heißt jetzt hengsin.
[09:01] viola: and is adempiere your only business?
[09:01] hengsin: at the moment, yes 
[09:01] viola: I see
[09:02] viola: you own a new house now?
[09:02] viola: transition went well?
[09:02] hengsin: yeap, still thinking what 2 do with the other
[09:03] hengsin: moving from an apartment to a 2 storey linked house
[09:03] viola: huhu - adempiere business work well 
[09:03] hengsin: haha ... I guess it is more correct to say it is own by the bank 
[09:04] viola:
[09:04] viola: Did you read last weeks summary?
[09:04] viola: Any questiions or things to add?
[09:04] viola: +
[09:05] bcahya hat den Chatroom betreten.
[09:08] viola: Ok - Agenda for todays meeting is here: http://www.adempiere.com/index.php/PMC_Architecture_Meeting_20100428
[09:08] viola: Any additions or changes?
[09:08] hengsin: yeap, it is ok, just have to wait for carlos now
[09:09] hengsin: hi Paul
[09:09] hengsin: hmm .. it is already 15:10, anyone knows whether Carlos is available ?
[09:10] viola: no info about that here
[09:10] viola: hengsin: maybe we could already start with some more techy issues
[09:11] phib: hi hengsin, viola
[09:11] viola: hi paul!
[09:11] hengsin: ok, meanwhile, I have a question for you. for the ejb, have you decided which path to go ? osgi or web serivce ?
[09:11] viola: I currently investigate eclipse riena and ECF
[09:11] viola: I would like to use distributed OSGi services
[09:12] viola: and have a soap or rest API also
[09:12] viola: ECF seems to be a flexible choice
[09:12] viola: But:
[09:13] viola: We only have StatusBean and ServerBean as EJBs
[09:13] hengsin: yeap, I've read that, looks great. only thing is our osgi port would be stable anytime soon and we can't get rid of the application server dependency in our next release
[09:13] hengsin: I means wouldn't be
[09:13] viola: And I cannot believe their functionality is really required
[09:13] bcahya hat den Chatroom verlassen. (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
[09:14] viola: correct
[09:14] tony_tspc hat den Chatroom betreten.
[09:14] bcahya hat den Chatroom betreten.
[09:15] viola: But anyone can go ahead and provide some interface
[09:16] hengsin: ic, do you think it worth the effort to trial using the existing web service code we have ?
[09:16] viola: any delegation for OSGi can be added later simply
[09:16] viola: havnt take a look at that
[09:17] hengsin: Paul, what's your opinion on this ?
[09:17] viola: what infrastructure is used there?
[09:18] hengsin: Jorg, it is using xfire and soap
[09:19] hengsin: and xmlbeans too
[09:19] phib: we've been using the existing web service code and it seems fairly stable
[09:19] phib: not sure what is required to replace the ServerBean functionality
[09:19] phib: What is the advantage of ECF?
[09:20] hengsin: Paul, AFAIK, the existing web service code provide everything that ServerBean have so we should be able to do a direct replacement
[09:20] viola: ECF is only relevant for OSGi
[09:21] viola: ??? then why not simply use it?
[09:21] hengsin: yeah, Jorg, that's what I'm asking here 
[09:22] hengsin: Paul, feel free to correct me if that's not the case.
[09:24] phib: I haven't looked closely at it -- we've used it for CRUD and invoking processes, nothing else.
[09:24] phib: Isn't there any issue with upgrading the library though?
[09:25] viola: XFree is now CXF - lots of changes
[09:25] hengsin: If we goes that path, I would like to drop all application server dependency too.
[09:25] hengsin: yeah, the migration to cxf is not trivial.
[09:26] hengsin: I guess we can stick with xfire and soap until someone have the time to move that over
[09:26] viola: can anyone explain to my why emails and processes must be run on a server? - why not simply start them from the client? and completely remove these remote functionalities
[09:27] hengsin: for email, sometime the mail server is not reachable from the client
[09:27] viola: would mean this client machine cannot send *any* email - this seems to be an exceptional case
[09:28] viola: understand me right - I simply want to KISS
[09:29] hengsin: Jorg, it is actually more for us, most of our client don't use the swing client 
[09:30] hengsin: I means we are more eager to drop those stuff but I know other still used it 
[09:30] viola: then we should ask implementors if it can be dropped
[09:30] viola: I think we do not have enough resources to work on features rarely used...
[09:31] tony_tspc hat den Chatroom verlassen. (*.net *.split)
[09:31] hengsin: ok, somehow we comeback to the OI stuff again 
[09:32] viola: sigh - sorry
[09:32] viola:
[09:32] viola: Well I simply want to know whether I have to take the server into account for OSGi
[09:32] hengsin: lets put web service replacement as the path for now, we can discuss its priority again when the OI things is being define better.
[09:33] viola: ok
[09:33] viola: ahm hengsin - did you make any progress in this model class proxy issue?
[09:33] hengsin: Jorg, I guess for your osgi development, we can drop that and put in some dummy stub for now
[09:34] hengsin: no, not yet. hardly do any architecture related task in the pass few week, too busy with private matters and the zk client work.
[09:34] viola: I see
[09:34] hengsin: but I've moved now and should be able to find more time for things
[09:35] viola: I am currently working against May 14. This is the code freeze date right?
[09:35] hengsin: yeap, that's what we agree last time but I guess it seems now that also depends how the OI effort goes
[09:36] viola: I'd ignore that  on may 14, I want a PoC for the swing client with most basic questoins solved
[09:36] viola: and my feeling is i'm near
[09:37] hengsin: Jorg, do you agree with my proposal above, just put in dummy stub for the remote services ?
[09:37] tony_tspc hat den Chatroom betreten.
[09:37] viola: Oh sorry didn't answer it because I took it for granted - yes I'd do it that way!
[09:38] hengsin: ok, can be as simple as a class that throw NotImplemented exception 
[09:38] viola: well may it is even easier to implement it as a local service
[09:38] phib: what other basic questions remain?
[09:39] hengsin: if we can drop the jboss stuff, the installation package size will cut by half
[09:39] viola: basic things yet to tackle:
[09:39] viola: - how to deal with model classes provided by a plugin?
[09:40] viola: - provide a nontrivial prototype plugin - will be accounting
[09:40] viola: - provide some deployment option for the web client (just added as hengsin wants to drop jboss completely  )
[09:40] viola: and that should be it.
[09:41] viola: for the PoC - then it must be tested and used by more people
[09:41] viola: ah and forgot: Use hengsins new 2pack for plugin installation
[09:43] phib: have you started work on the prototype plugin?
[09:45] viola: I have some trivial ones laying around and discussed interfaces with carlos - not yet really started
[09:46] viola: but it will not be exiting I guess - simply have an Extension Point for Doc_*-classes
[09:46] viola: and provide a plugin with the current ones as default
[09:46] bcahya hat den Chatroom verlassen. (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
[09:46] viola: but they will then call back into core for the real work
[09:47] viola: Why that? - It is hard to really move code in the branch - I would delay that after trunk integration
[09:48] phib: ?
[09:48] viola:  why ?
[09:49] viola: I am in a branch with the OSGi code
[09:49] viola: If I now move a class out of the core into a plugin project....
[09:49] viola: do you imagine: that would lead to a merging hell
[09:50] viola: or do you have a recipe for that?
[09:50] phib: No magic bullet. Sorry.
[09:50] hengsin: mergine hell is fun 
[09:50] phib: I'd like to help but I feel out of my depth with the OSGI stuff
[09:51] viola: grrr hengsin
[09:51] viola: no - to be honest
[09:51] phib: I haven't had time to do more than check out your branch and go through your tutorial (thanks!)
[09:51] viola: i think the *real* code reorg must not take place in the branch but in the trunk
[09:52] viola: but thts fine - did it work?
[09:52] phib: yeah, I got it running 
[09:52] viola: ok I think meeting is over or anything to add?
[09:53] hengsin: no, bye Jorg