presentations/F2Fminutes.txt - virgo/org.eclipse.virgo.documentation - Git at Google

 Tuesday 30 November

 Set objectives of F2F:
 	Discuss work items
 	Agree roadmap for 2011
 	Discuss how we will work together
 	Prepare new committers

 Discussed use cases:
 	application development with IDE and associated Virgo runtime
 	server platform with clustering and "sandbox" support for potentially misbehaving applications
 	embedded as a thin layer in other products
 	kernel with custom extensions, not necessarily including web support
 	migration of existing WAR files etc: ORM should just work, when split into bundles should continue
 	to work

 High level requirements:
 	an application working in development must continue to work in production, e.g. wiring should be
 	predictable
 	clear rules for what constitutes an application comprising multiple bundles

 Kernel discussion:
 	Migration of user region from nested framework to framework hooks
 		Migration to Equinox 3.7 complete
 		Prototyping necessary to see how well the user region functions with framework hooks
 		May need to feed back issues into OSGi spec work, so needs to be high priority

 	File system layout
 		Several benefits to adopting standard Eclipse/p2 layout
 		Issues: clustering/sharing, cold start, tooling, additional folders (work, serviceability, ...)

 	Startup order
 		There is no waiting for configuration so it is not possible to loosen up the current startup order
 		This is supported in Spring DM v2 which can be used when Virgo rebases on Blueprint instead of
 		Spring DM 1.2.1.
 		Namespace support also implies an ordering.

 	Declarative services:
 		Should be supported "out of the box" by Virgo
 		There may be benefits for Virgo exploiting DS for its own service wiring, at least for the kernel
 		- prototyping necessary

 	Deployer extensibility:
 		Today this requires adding a fragment to the deployer bundle
 		Requirement to extend the deployer using public APIs only
 		Proposal to introduce a descriptor/facade which would clarify the extension contract

 Build & release discussion:
 	There is now no dependence on publishing to Amazon S3 and this can be ripped out fairly easily
 	This will enable new committers to ripple and release without needing SpringSource S3 keys
 	Requirement to do developer/local ripples without publishing built artifacts
 	Requirement to produce a p2 repository from the build
 	Maven repo can now be published to build.eclipse.org
 	Discussion about Tycho and difficulty of managing manifests outside the IDE

 Repository & p2 discussion:
 	Overview of existing Virgo artifact repository
 	Overview of p2
 	Staged approach discussed:
 		Use p2 for initial provisioning of Virgo - may pre-req file system layout change
 		Add p2 to the Virgo repository chain - needs e.g. p2 touchpoint for plans, PARs, etc.
 		Drive deployment/update via p2
 		Drive deployment via kernel and keep p2 profile and bundles.info updated

 ========================================================================================================
 Wednesday 1 December

 Reviewed minutes from Tuesday and completed p2 discussion.

 Discussion of Virgo's advantages and disadvantages relative to Aries, Glassfish, & JBoss.

 Discussion of development and production modes. Important that any such mode is emphasised in
 the admin console. In production, SAP disable JSP compilation, disable pickup/dropins, disable JMX,
 ensure console can only be accessed from localhost. In development, SAP increase detail in HTTP
 access logs. General discussion of the need for making persistent configuration changes from the
 admin console. There was a consensus that a mode is desirable with a default of "development".

 Discussion of "precompiling" dependencies and deploying preferred/mandatory wirings with an application.

 Discussion of state of play of Jetty support and snaps. Snaps could be improved so that a snap specifies
 its host web context path instead of bundle symbolic name and bundle version. Discussion of a snaps
 subproject. Glyn will look into the overhead of creating a snap subproject.

 Discussion of Tomcat and Gemini Web. There is a need for Gemini Web documentation. Tomcat 7 is
 expected to ship by 1Q11, so Virgo can migrate to Tomcat 7 for the next release.

 Discussion of enterprise features and the desirability or not of Virgo supporting the Java EE 6
 web profile. Consensus that web profile support would be a good thing. There is a need for
 representative system tests for JPA etc. usage to ensure these scenarios continue to work.

 Discussion of roadmap - see the presentations from SpringSource and SAP.

 General discussion of the responsibilities of committers in terms of community support, coding,
 and testing. Florian ran through the "RAP House Rules" new committers presentation.

 Discussion of admin console and shell support. Likely that Apache gogo will be supported in Equinox.
 Desirability of command history, tab completion of commands and parameters (names *and* values),
 and ssh support was discussed.

 The meeting finished a little early as we were well ahead of schedule.

 =======================================================================================================
 Thursday 2 December

 Florian led an exercise where we installed Jetty, Equinox, or Virgo. The objective of the Eclipse RT
 Packaging (RTP) project is to simplify the initial experience of installing RT projects. Discussion of
 mixing and matching features prior to download. RTP is not currently envisaged as containing much code,
 so there was some discussion of whether this was realistic. Krassi agreed to talk to the RTP committers
 about requirements and to offer assistance if appropriate.

 Committers elections are underway for Violeta (also proposed for Gemini Web committer), Borislav, Hristo,
 and Dmitry. Florian is interested too and needs to increase his track record of contributions before we can
 propose him.

 Shared skype contacts to ensure good communications between committers.

 Discussed Virgo tooling and OSGi Enterprise Tooling and in particular whether it will be possible to use
 the OSGi Enterprise Tooling out of the box with Virgo or whether this would show some kind of vendor bias.

 Overview of web admin console and brief discussion of dojo and Spring MVC usage.

 Discussion of shells, what we get for free in Equinox 3.7, and the likelihood of Apache gogo becoming
 available, with pro's and con's TBD.

 We revisited the roadmap discussion. No changes were needed as we are pretty much aligned in what needs
 to happen. There is a need to make Virgo startup much faster. SAP are interested in analysing this and
 Glyn is happy to help process the findings and consider trade-offs relative to function.

 Brainstorming of Virgo futures and committer working methods - see the mindmaps on the wiki.

 Dmitry point out this article on git branching http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/.
 We discussed branching approaches, but for now we will continue branching off
 master for features and merging back into master rather than collecting on a separate development
 branch.

 The afternoon covered how to make a code change and ripple it up, although the ripple failed with a
 hang in the web layer which appears to be an intermitted problem possibly related to machine settings
 such as VM heap/permgen. Glyn gave a brief tour round the kernel and explained the high level design
 of the deployer. Dmitry proposed a refactoring to loosen coupling in the deployer which he will prototype.

 We then broke into separate groups to do code reviews, discuss p2 interaction with the deployer, and look
 at publishing p2 artefacts from Virgo build.

 Finally, we agreed that we should reconvene before June but we would see how the next few weeks go before
 deciding on a precise date, although SAP are happy to host in Sofia.
	Tuesday 30 November

	Set objectives of F2F:
	Discuss work items
	Agree roadmap for 2011
	Discuss how we will work together
	Prepare new committers

	Discussed use cases:
	application development with IDE and associated Virgo runtime
	server platform with clustering and "sandbox" support for potentially misbehaving applications
	embedded as a thin layer in other products
	kernel with custom extensions, not necessarily including web support
	migration of existing WAR files etc: ORM should just work, when split into bundles should continue
	to work

	High level requirements:
	an application working in development must continue to work in production, e.g. wiring should be
	predictable
	clear rules for what constitutes an application comprising multiple bundles

	Kernel discussion:
	Migration of user region from nested framework to framework hooks
	Migration to Equinox 3.7 complete
	Prototyping necessary to see how well the user region functions with framework hooks
	May need to feed back issues into OSGi spec work, so needs to be high priority

	File system layout
	Several benefits to adopting standard Eclipse/p2 layout
	Issues: clustering/sharing, cold start, tooling, additional folders (work, serviceability, ...)

	Startup order
	There is no waiting for configuration so it is not possible to loosen up the current startup order
	This is supported in Spring DM v2 which can be used when Virgo rebases on Blueprint instead of
	Spring DM 1.2.1.
	Namespace support also implies an ordering.

	Declarative services:
	Should be supported "out of the box" by Virgo
	There may be benefits for Virgo exploiting DS for its own service wiring, at least for the kernel
	- prototyping necessary

	Deployer extensibility:
	Today this requires adding a fragment to the deployer bundle
	Requirement to extend the deployer using public APIs only
	Proposal to introduce a descriptor/facade which would clarify the extension contract

	Build & release discussion:
	There is now no dependence on publishing to Amazon S3 and this can be ripped out fairly easily
	This will enable new committers to ripple and release without needing SpringSource S3 keys
	Requirement to do developer/local ripples without publishing built artifacts
	Requirement to produce a p2 repository from the build
	Maven repo can now be published to build.eclipse.org
	Discussion about Tycho and difficulty of managing manifests outside the IDE

	Repository & p2 discussion:
	Overview of existing Virgo artifact repository
	Overview of p2
	Staged approach discussed:
	Use p2 for initial provisioning of Virgo - may pre-req file system layout change
	Add p2 to the Virgo repository chain - needs e.g. p2 touchpoint for plans, PARs, etc.
	Drive deployment/update via p2
	Drive deployment via kernel and keep p2 profile and bundles.info updated

	========================================================================================================
	Wednesday 1 December

	Reviewed minutes from Tuesday and completed p2 discussion.

	Discussion of Virgo's advantages and disadvantages relative to Aries, Glassfish, & JBoss.

	Discussion of development and production modes. Important that any such mode is emphasised in
	the admin console. In production, SAP disable JSP compilation, disable pickup/dropins, disable JMX,
	ensure console can only be accessed from localhost. In development, SAP increase detail in HTTP
	access logs. General discussion of the need for making persistent configuration changes from the
	admin console. There was a consensus that a mode is desirable with a default of "development".

	Discussion of "precompiling" dependencies and deploying preferred/mandatory wirings with an application.

	Discussion of state of play of Jetty support and snaps. Snaps could be improved so that a snap specifies
	its host web context path instead of bundle symbolic name and bundle version. Discussion of a snaps
	subproject. Glyn will look into the overhead of creating a snap subproject.

	Discussion of Tomcat and Gemini Web. There is a need for Gemini Web documentation. Tomcat 7 is
	expected to ship by 1Q11, so Virgo can migrate to Tomcat 7 for the next release.

	Discussion of enterprise features and the desirability or not of Virgo supporting the Java EE 6
	web profile. Consensus that web profile support would be a good thing. There is a need for
	representative system tests for JPA etc. usage to ensure these scenarios continue to work.

	Discussion of roadmap - see the presentations from SpringSource and SAP.

	General discussion of the responsibilities of committers in terms of community support, coding,
	and testing. Florian ran through the "RAP House Rules" new committers presentation.

	Discussion of admin console and shell support. Likely that Apache gogo will be supported in Equinox.
	Desirability of command history, tab completion of commands and parameters (names and values),
	and ssh support was discussed.

	The meeting finished a little early as we were well ahead of schedule.

	=======================================================================================================
	Thursday 2 December

	Florian led an exercise where we installed Jetty, Equinox, or Virgo. The objective of the Eclipse RT
	Packaging (RTP) project is to simplify the initial experience of installing RT projects. Discussion of
	mixing and matching features prior to download. RTP is not currently envisaged as containing much code,
	so there was some discussion of whether this was realistic. Krassi agreed to talk to the RTP committers
	about requirements and to offer assistance if appropriate.

	Committers elections are underway for Violeta (also proposed for Gemini Web committer), Borislav, Hristo,
	and Dmitry. Florian is interested too and needs to increase his track record of contributions before we can
	propose him.

	Shared skype contacts to ensure good communications between committers.

	Discussed Virgo tooling and OSGi Enterprise Tooling and in particular whether it will be possible to use
	the OSGi Enterprise Tooling out of the box with Virgo or whether this would show some kind of vendor bias.

	Overview of web admin console and brief discussion of dojo and Spring MVC usage.

	Discussion of shells, what we get for free in Equinox 3.7, and the likelihood of Apache gogo becoming
	available, with pro's and con's TBD.

	We revisited the roadmap discussion. No changes were needed as we are pretty much aligned in what needs
	to happen. There is a need to make Virgo startup much faster. SAP are interested in analysing this and
	Glyn is happy to help process the findings and consider trade-offs relative to function.

	Brainstorming of Virgo futures and committer working methods - see the mindmaps on the wiki.

	Dmitry point out this article on git branching http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/.
	We discussed branching approaches, but for now we will continue branching off
	master for features and merging back into master rather than collecting on a separate development
	branch.

	The afternoon covered how to make a code change and ripple it up, although the ripple failed with a
	hang in the web layer which appears to be an intermitted problem possibly related to machine settings
	such as VM heap/permgen. Glyn gave a brief tour round the kernel and explained the high level design
	of the deployer. Dmitry proposed a refactoring to loosen coupling in the deployer which he will prototype.

	We then broke into separate groups to do code reviews, discuss p2 interaction with the deployer, and look
	at publishing p2 artefacts from Virgo build.

	Finally, we agreed that we should reconvene before June but we would see how the next few weeks go before
	deciding on a precise date, although SAP are happy to host in Sofia.