ws-soap-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jacek Kopecky <ja...@idoox.com>
Subject Re: Potential F2F design session for 3.0?
Date Tue, 14 Nov 2000 16:14:53 GMT
Unless something goes terribly wrong I'll also be able to come, so 

14.  Jacek Kopecky jacek@idoox.com

It was not so certain until last weekend, though.

                            Jacek Kopecky
                               Idoox



On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, Vahe Amirbekyan wrote:

 > Hello,
 > 
 > Here are the people declaring their intention to participate the F2F
 > meeting (based on RSVP voting) on Wednesday afternoon and Thursday
 > morning (December 6-7th):
 > 
 > 1.	Diane L. Davison Diane.Davison@oracle.com
 > 2.	Doug Davis dug@us.ibm.com
 > 3.	Glen Daniels gdaniels@allaire.com
 > 4.	James Snell jmsnell@intesolv.com
 > 5.	Jean-Noel Gadreau jngadreau@activcard.com
 > 6.	Kevin Mitchell kevin.mitchell@xmls.com
 > 7.	Matthew Duftler duftler@us.ibm.com
 > 8.	Ryo Neyama neyama@trl.ibm.co.jp
 > 9.	Sanjiva Weerawarana sanjiva@watson.ibm.com
 > 10.	Stephen Graham sggraham@us.ibm.com
 > 11.	Vahe Amirbekyan avahe@techone.com
 > 12.	Vivek Chopra vivekchopra@yahoo.com
 > 13.	Yuhichi Nakamura NAKAMURY@jp.ibm.com
 > 
 > Sorry, if I have omitted someone. 
 > 
 > Vahe
 > 
 > Glen Daniels wrote:
 > > 
 > > > > With a group the size we are expecting (based on the number of +1
 > > responses
 > > > > to the original F2F note), it might be difficult to accomplish all the
 > > > > tasks you suggest.
 > > >
 > > > I'm also concerned about the size of the group. It seems to me an
 > > > unplanned discussion with a group of > 10 will be tough .. Glen, you
 > > > probably should do an "agenda" type thing and organize this a bit! :-)
 > > 
 > > It's a bit tough to do this before knowing exactly how much time + space
 > > we're going to have.  I should hopefully hear back from the convention
 > > organizers soon about the room situation.
 > > 
 > > See below for more comments re: agenda.
 > > 
 > > > I think the scope is still replacing the current engine. Does anyone
 > > > disagree?
 > > 
 > > Nope, sounds right to me.  With the caveat that we will, of course, refactor
 > > all the useful code we can from the current version into the new one.
 > > 
 > > > I think we need to somehow work on the design during this F2F. We have
 > > > several alternate proposals and its hard to unify these via email.
 > > 
 > > I agree.
 > > 
 > > My gut feeling on this is that many of us will actually have a huge amount
 > > of overlap in our requirements lists, and that doing that part will be
 > > pretty quick.  Once we've written down what we consider to be the important
 > > parts of the system (including some use-cases), we can dive into going over
 > > the proposals that have been floated and making some decisions as a group
 > > about structure, responsibilities, and naming of components.  I'm hopeful we
 > > can get to the point where we have one or two sets of straw-man UML diagrams
 > > by the end of the meeting, and then be able to continue from that point via
 > > email.
 > > 
 > > I'll try to work up an agenda as soon as I hear from the XML2K people.
 > > 
 > > --Glen
 > 
 > 


Mime
View raw message