Changes between Version 1 and Version 2 of PscMeeting02-05-2009


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Feb 5, 2009 1:46:43 PM (10 years ago)
Author:
tomfukushima
Comment:

--

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • PscMeeting02-05-2009

    v1 v2  
    33== Meeting Info ==
    44
    5 The eighteenth meeting of the !MapGuide PSC will take place Thursday, February 5, 2009 at 19:00 UTC (2:00 PM ET / 12:00 AM MT / 11:00 AM PT).
     5The eighteenth meeting of the !MapGuide PSC will take place Thursday, February 5, 2009 at 19:00 UTC (2:00 PM ET / noon MT / 11:00 AM PT).
    66
    77Meeting Chair:  Bob Bray
     
    1717 * MGOS and Fusion release schedule
    1818
     19== Actions ==
     20
     21 * Bob: document initial process for donations, usage guidelines etc.
     22 * Bob, Bruce, others: Review http://www.jasonbirch.com/nodes/2009/01/31/269/mapguide-rest-extension-feedback-wanted/ by Feb 13, 2009
     23 * Paul: Fusion 2.0 beta
     24 * Paul + Tom: integration of Fusion 2.0 beta into MGOS in time for MGOS 2.1
     25 * Jason + Kenneth - beta installer by end Feb
     26
     27== Minutes ==
     28
     29PSC Members present: Andy (first half), Bob, Bruce, Harris, Jason, Kenneth, Tom.
     30
     31=== Appoint a Meeting Secretary ===
     32
     33 * Tom Fukushima volunteered to take minutes
     34
     35=== Review last meeting's action items ===
     36
     37'''Tom: (with Trevor) - setup a Donate to Builds process where donations go directly to Trevor who would supply a !PayPal account and regular reporting'''
     38
     39RFC 58 was created for this.  Everyone was good with it and agreed to going to vote today.
     40
     41'''Bob: document initial process for donations, usage guidelines etc.'''
     42
     43Not started. Build support is more critical.
     44
     45'''Tom: get the C code for the IIS installer and perhaps opensource it?'''
     46
     47Code sent to Kenneth who after evaluating decided to go with the WiX IIS Module.  This approach should be more maintainable than our own custom module. Could be more extensible too to for example fetch a list of websites for the user.
     48
     49'''Jason + Kenneth - beta installer by end Jan'''
     50
     51Still in progress.  New target date of end of February.
     52
     53Kenneth having some problems with building !MapGuide and FDO.  He felt that there was a problem because some parts were using VS 2008 and others 2007.  But Jason and Tom assured him that it was all compiled using VS 2008 SP1 now.  There is a problem with building off the FDO trunk, but Kenneth will look into that.
     54
     55'''Paul: Fusion 2.0 beta'''
     56
     57Paul not present.
     58
     59'''Paul + Tom: integration of Fusion 2.0 beta into MGOS in time for MGOS 2.1'''
     60
     61Not done yet.
     62
     63
     64=== MGOS and Fusion release schedule ===
     65
     66 * Move milestones for MGOS.  2.1 goes to April 2, 2009 and 2.2. goes to Oct 1, 2009. (Done)
     67
     68 * MGOS beta in early March, then target release on April 2.
     69
     70 * The fusion2-mg21 branch is not the branch for MGOS 2.1.  A new one will need to be created for MGOS 2.1. Tom to set this set up before MGOS beta (end of month).
     71
     72
     73=== RFC 59, TIN layer ===
     74
     75 * Seems to be an internal Autodesk initiative. The Autodesk PSC members did not have information on it so it was suggested to ask questions about the RFC on !MapGuide internals.
     76
     77=== REST Interface ===
     78
     79 * Would like to get http://www.jasonbirch.com/nodes/2009/01/31/269/mapguide-rest-extension-feedback-wanted/ reviewed.  Please provide comments by Feb 13, 2009.
     80
     81=== End of meeting ===
     82
     83== Full transcript ==
     84{{{
     85
     86        <rbray> Looks like most everyone is here so let's start
     87        <rbray> Who want's to record minutes today?
     88        <tomf2> I can
     89        <rbray> excellent - thanks Tom
     90        <rbray> There was a bunch of actions from last meeting, so I wanted to follow up on those
     91        <tomf2> Shall we start with last week's actions?
     92        <tomf2> Tom: (with Trevor) - setup a Donate to Builds process where donations go directly to Trevor who would supply a PayPal? account and regular reporting
     93        <rbray> Tom - how is the donate to builds thing coming?
     94        <tomf2> RFC has been posted and is under review.
     95        <tomf2> Everything with Paypal looks good in that we can get reports from it
     96        <rbray> when do you expect a vote?
     97        <tomf2> 7 days after I posted it for review, unless there are problems
     98        <jasonbirch>    Are we all here and happy with it?
     99        <jasonbirch>    If so, we can vote now.
     100        <rbray> Paul is missing
     101        <jasonbirch>    Oh, darn.
     102        <tomf2> ...so far no one has reported any problem
     103        <jasonbirch>    I'd suggest starting a vote via email immediately.
     104        <rbray> yea it looks fine to me
     105        <tomf2> Is this holding us up on something?
     106        <jasonbirch>    Reluctanct to put time into it without mechanism for ensuring ...
     107        <jasonbirch>    ?
     108        <tomf2> I see
     109        <tomf2> I'll start a vote after this meeting
     110        <rbray> ok thanks Tom
     111        <rbray> next one
     112        <rbray> Bob: document initial process for donations, usage guidelines etc.
     113        <tomf2> Bob: document initial process for donations, usage guidelines etc.
     114        <tomf2> OK, I'll let you do that
     115        <rbray> not started - so leave it on the open actions list
     116        <rbray> this was for project donations through OSGeo - which is less critical than build support
     117        <rbray> Tom: get the C code for the IIS installer and perhaps opensource it?
     118        <tomf2> I've sent that to Kenneth and Jason
     119        <tomf2> It's free to be open sourced
     120        <tomf2> Tim meant to do that before but just didn't get around to it
     121        <kenneth_skovhede>      Yes I have looked at it briefly
     122        <kenneth_skovhede>      I would like to use the WiX IIS module, rather than rely on an external C build
     123        <kenneth_skovhede>      IMO, using the built-in module, eases future maintenance
     124        <jasonbirch>    I agree with kenneth, as long as it meets all of our neesd.
     125        <jasonbirch>    At some point we may need a custom action that allows us to fetch list of websites, user can choose.
     126        <jasonbirch>    Not at this point though.
     127        <kenneth_skovhede>      Unfortunately the current installer build requires that the mapguide trunk is completely built, which is difficult because of the current FDO/MapGuide switches between VS20057VS2008
     128        <jasonbirch>    ?
     129        <jasonbirch>    I thought both FDO and MapGuide were at 2008?
     130        <kenneth_skovhede>      So, in short, it is not ready, but I feel confident that we can get the current functionality done with little effort, using the built-in module.
     131        <tomf2> Yes, they're all at VS 2008 SP1
     132        <kenneth_skovhede>      Hmm... I must have something broken then
     133        <tomf2> I'm not sure about the SL-King providers though
     134        <rbray> ok so this action - Jason + Kenneth - beta installer by end Jan
     135        <rbray> is still in progress
     136        <jasonbirch>    I haven't had time to apply to this, and a death in the family makes it unlikely that I will for at least a couple weeks. Apologies.
     137        <kenneth_skovhede>      arh, yes... now I remember... I can't get MapGuide to build with the trunk FDO... but I'll sort that out elsewhere
     138        <HarisK>        we build with vs 2005, meanly because of older versions of MAP, I guess we could do it with 200b sp
     139        <rbray> ok, so let's leave this on the list of open actions as well
     140        <rbray> jasonbirch: sorry to hear about that
     141        <tomf2> Is there a new target date?
     142        <rbray> sounds like end of Feb
     143        <tomf2> jasonbirch: sorry to hear about that. No apologies necessary.
     144        <jasonbirch>    no big effect on me, but supporting my wife limits my time
     145        <tomf2> OK, so we should move the MGOS 2.1 release out
     146        <jasonbirch>    Yes, I think so.
     147        <rbray> yea we don't really have much choice
     148        <jasonbirch>    Unless there's someone else that can pick up the ball.
     149        <tomf2> Oh, sorry, I thought 2.1 was March 1st, but that's 2.2. I'll change the dates for the releases. 2.1 target of April 1?
     150        <rbray> yes that makes sense
     151        <rbray> any objections?
     152        <bdechant>      Could we make it April 2nd isstead of April Fool's Day?
     153        <kenneth_skovhede>      :)
     154        <tomf2> sure
     155        <kenneth_skovhede>      apart from the installer, are there other issues that are considered "blocking"?
     156        <tomf2> I'll put 2.2 at Oct 1
     157        <tomf2> Just the build and install
     158        <rbray> Where do we sit with the build environment?
     159        <jasonbirch>    I don't think so. The raster stuff is a constant annoyance, but I don't see a way around that, and haven't tested trunk to see if it's fixed.
     160        <tomf2> We could have the beta out in March, and then a final release by April 1st. Perhaps a little bit optimistic, but the code should be good
     161        <tomf2> I mean April 2nd
     162        <bdechant>      :)
     163        <tomf2> rbray: perhaps that's a question for Trevor?
     164        <rbray> yes - ok
     165        <rbray> Tom do you know the status of the Fusion 2.0 integration?
     166        <rbray> since Paul is not here
     167        <tomf2> No, but it is simple to do. We just need to change a property on the OEM directory to point to the right branch of Fusion
     168        <tomf2> It hasn't been done yet
     169        <rbray> timeframe?
     170        <tomf2> before the MGOS 2.1 beta. But I will discuss with Paul, because I need to get a Fusion branch that I can point to
     171        <rbray> ok
     172        |<--    amorsell has left irc.freenode.net ("ChatZilla 0.9.84 [Firefox 3.0.5/2008120122]")
     173        <jasonbirch>    tomf2: are you sure? The fusion directory in trunk is externalled to the fusion svn
     174        <jasonbirch>    http://svn.osgeo.org/fusion/branches/fusion2-mg21
     175        <tomf2> Yes, that's not the right branch
     176        <tomf2> ...unfortunate name that is
     177        <rbray> Hopefull Paul will be back next week and can shed some light on the right branch to use
     178        <rbray> and yes - really bad name
     179        <rbray> so that's it for the actions - we kind of discussed release schedule already
     180        <rbray> any other business we should discuss?
     181        <jasonbirch>    Can I add a late item or two?
     182        <jasonbirch>    :)
     183        <rbray> of course you can
     184        <jasonbirch>    OK, Item1: RFC59, TIN layer. Cart before horse?
     185        <jasonbirch>    Is this in support of some internal ADSK functionality?
     186        <jasonbirch>    http://trac.osgeo.org/mapguide/wiki/MapGuideRfc59
     187        <bdechant>      initially yes, but hopefully the OS community would like to see it part of MG
     188        <jasonbirch>    Is there any potential to release an FDO provider for this to open source, or is it your internal Oracle provider?
     189        <bdechant>      At this time it is internal, but the existing open source FDO provider community could support it
     190        <rbray> which provider supports that?
     191        <bdechant>      The Autodesk Oracle provider from what I know, but it is still being worked on
     192        <HarisK>        this is not generated from points ?
     193        <bdechant>      Not sure as I'm not involved in the development, just was pointed to the RFC :)
     194        <HarisK>        :)
     195        <HarisK>        to me it looks somethi gto be generated from points coming from any provider
     196        <bdechant>      The point of the RFC was to help define a TIN layer. ADSK will be the 1st to leverage it, but it is available to the OS community.
     197        <jasonbirch>    It's hard to evaluate the RFC without an underlying data implementation to test.
     198        <jasonbirch>    Or, if not test, think about?
     199        <jasonbirch>    I'm guessing that this will be initially be using a non-standard, provider-specific interface?
     200        <tomf2> First I've looked at it too. Perhaps we should post these questions to mapguide-internals and get the authors to answer?
     201        <bdechant>      Sort of - not all RFCs can be tested prior
     202        <bdechant>      I agree with Tom
     203        <rbray> yea I don't know what the source of this is eitehr, so let's do that
     204        <jasonbirch>    OK, sounds good to me.
     205        <rbray> what's your other item?
     206        <jasonbirch>    Item 2: REST interface. Just wondering if had a chance to look at, had comments, questions?
     207        <bdechant>      I will ask them to post it for review on the mapguide internals
     208        <jasonbirch>    http://www.jasonbirch.com/nodes/2009/01/31/269/mapguide-rest-extension-feedback-wanted/
     209        <rbray> No i have not looked at it yet, but it's on my list of things to look at
     210        <jasonbirch>    This will be going to RFC once Haris finishes his current refactor.
     211        <jasonbirch>    I think... :)
     212        <HarisK>        yes :), any suggestions very much welcomed
     213        <bdechant>      I was planning to spend some time with it tomorrow Jason
     214        <kenneth_skovhede>      I have looked at it, and seems great for non-programmers to easily utilize spatial data and attributes.
     215        <rbray> Dumb question after just a peek
     216        <rbray> what resources are exposed through /data?
     217        <jasonbirch>    Whatever is configured.
     218        <HarisK>        kenneth: hopefully for programmers too :)
     219        <kenneth_skovhede>      Personally, I would like it to extend to configuring the runtime map. I think its annoying that it is impossible to toggle layers purely clientside, but I understand that is not considered for the current release
     220        <jasonbirch>    It's not automatic; you have to set up each one.
     221        <rbray> how? in a config file or?
     222        <jasonbirch>    Yes, XML config file.
     223        <HarisK>        it will support, MG resources and others as well
     224        <HarisK>        like other data coming from HTTP
     225        <kenneth_skovhede>      HarisK: Yes, perhaps, but I'm having trouble seeing how this will ease my current use of MapGuide.
     226        <kenneth_skovhede>      HarisK: but new people will probably like it a lot more than the current API
     227        <jasonbirch>    Preliminary of configuration: http://www.nopaste.com/p/aVhBUTSCY
     228        <rbray> I guess i need to see the config file, I am personally not keen on those
     229        <jasonbirch>    kenneth_skovhede: map access is beyond scope. There is thought of Map interface different from Data
     230        <jasonbirch>    rbray: MapGuide is _built_ on config files...
     231        <jasonbirch>    :)
     232        <rbray> I know and I am not keen on adding more
     233        <jasonbirch>    Not sure how you could have this as granular as my business requirements were without configuration.
     234        <rbray> hard to say without knowing your business requirements :)
     235        <jasonbirch>    If it was just JSON and XML, then could just flag as exposed or not.
     236        <jasonbirch>    But templating needs to be configurable.
     237        <rbray> anyway I can't really comment much because I have not looked in detail
     238        <rbray> I will make an effort to do that and post some questions/comments
     239        <jasonbirch>    OK. Would love to hear feedback on list if/when you folks have a chance to look it over.
     240        <jasonbirch>    That's it for me...
     241        <tomf2> Let's set a date for that. What is the date that we would like to review the REST interface before going to RFC?
     242        <rbray> good idea
     243        <jasonbirch>    Not ready to give date :) Won't go to RFC until code is ready for public review.
     244        <jasonbirch>    Should be ready within a month.
     245        <rbray> let's set the date for some feedback for mid-Feb
     246        <rbray> so 7-10 days from now
     247        <tomf2> jasonbirch: I was looking for a date when Bob and Bruce and others would have feedback on the REST Extension page that you linked to above
     248        <jasonbirch>    Ah...
     249        <jasonbirch>    As soon as possible; Haris is working hard so the earlier the better.
     250        <rbray> ok - end of next week
     251        <rbray> Bruce and I will get together and discuss it
     252        <rbray> anything else for today?
     253        <tomf2> OK, I'll write down Feb 13th. And try to improve my English typing skills :)
     254        <rbray> thanks tom
     255        <rbray> ok everyone, meeting adjourned
     256        <rbray> thanks
     257        <HarisK>        thanks
     258        <jasonbirch>    thanks and bye! :)
     259        <bdechant>      bye everyone
     260        <HarisK>        bye
     261}}}