January, February, March 2000
Date of Meeting: 28th March 2000
Present: S.Jackson, M.Jorda Garcia, G.Morpurgo, V.Paris
Excused: G.Crockford
Model
- Mani explained the difference between JavaBeans and Java classes.
- Standard OP JavaBeans could be defined with a method to read properties and actions from external files.
We could have external property and action files per application and per OP JavaBean, none of them mandatory.
All properties and actions would be defined by default and some would be frozen.- In addition, we could create a simple code generator to help developers who do not want to use an IDE tool. They would have to provide an interface file as input.
The developer will have to choose between using an IDE tool or the code generator, it will not be straight to jump from one to the other.
Tools
Rational Rose has been
mentioned, in our case specially for documentation and reverse engineering.
Actions
and later Definition of the syntax, easy to use for the developers. Definition of the
code generator.
Date of Meeting: 14th March 2000
Present: G.Crockford, S.Jackson, M.Jorda Garcia, G.Morpurgo, V.Paris
Model
Stephen wrote down ideas on the three
different layers.
Mani presented some slides (Description,Frame,Panel1,Panel2,Panel3,Property,Action,Result) to explain
how our Standard OP Java beans could be associated with Property and Action files.
- There will be default properties and actions and the developer will
put his prefered properties and actions in those files.
- Should we have one set of property and action files per application
or per OP Java bean ?
- Should those files be mandatory (and possibly empty) ?
- Is it possible to let the user choose the layout ?
- Is there a way for our Java beans to act between each other ?
Actions To answer those questions and test the feasibility, an example of
application with several panels will be built -> Mani. Standard OP Java
beans will be defined -> Guy. Definition of the syntax, easy to use for
the developers. Definition of the code generator.
Date of Meeting: 2nd March 2000
Present: G.Crockford, S.Jackson, M.Jorda Garcia, G.Morpurgo, V.Paris
IDE tools
NetBeans and the last version Forte have been
tried. It looks more appropriate to Windows than Unix.
Model
Giulio presented transparencies to explain how Xcreator works.
Then followed a discussion on its applicability to Java. Stephen will write
down his ideas.
Mani will create some reusable basic elements (JavaBeans).
Date of Meeting: 15th February 2000
Present: G.Crockford, S.Jackson, M.Jorda Garcia, G.Morpurgo, V.Paris
IDE tools
Mani has tried SL-GMS. Java code is not obtained directly but through some
translation step. Nevertheless the tool is good for building synoptics and we must keep it
in mind.
Jan Cuperus (PS/CO) is presently working on a PS Java Application
Frame , using JBuilder3. Only one Java
Virtual Machine is used for all the applications, which is fast and allows easy
communication. Their requirements are about the same as ours. He will be asked to give a
demo.
Another Java IDE tool, NetBeans, looks powerful and
easy-to-use on Windows,Unix and Linux operating systems. It should be investigated.
U.I.facilities
The description of some User Interface basic
components has been enhanced.
Model
We should concentrate on
1) How to define the interfaces (the equivalent
of the Xcreator Language)
2) How to exploit or build reusable basic elements (the equivalent of the Xcreator include files)
and later (as soon as we need)
3) How to facilitate operations with these elements (the equivalent of the Xcreator Auxiliary Library).
We will all work on a Model description and discuss ideas with each
other, as they come in, before the next meeting.
This Model should answer points 1) and 2).
Date of Meeting: 8th February 2000
Present: G.Crockford, S.Jackson, M.Jorda Garcia, G.Morpurgo, V.Paris
The tool
Peter Sollander and Yann Bieber from ST/MO made a demonstration of their new MMI for TCR (TSI project).
They are using the SL-GMS product as GUI tool.
Mani and Giulio will go through the documentation to see how appropriate
SL-GMS would be in our project and Mani will try it.
Technology
According to Pal Anderssen, Java Swing should be made usable in operation on time.
Mani told us that it is easy to move from Awt to Swing.
We will build a demo application, Giulio will prepare a specification.
U.I.facilities
A first list of U.I.
basic elements has been done. Giulio will complete the list with
characteristics per element.
New mode of operator interaction, e.g. through synoptics, will be envisaged.
At the last PCR Software meeting, it had been proposed that the decision concerning the
future of the Dataviewer should be worked out by our team.
We consider that the Dataviewer is outside our mandate even though we are fully in favour
of its existence in the future. Véronique will inform Pierre Charrue.
AOB
We have been informed by Vito Baggiolini about ideas for the GUI of the
new control system for SL/EA.
They want to carry out their work in coordination with our project.
Date of Meeting: 25th January 2000
Present: G.Crockford, S.Jackson, M.Jorda Garcia, G.Morpurgo, V.Paris
Technology
Investigation has been done on what is used in other divisions at CERN.
Java offers many possibilities, like those given by Xcreator. Mani presented 'Properties'
and 'ResourceBundle' with the facilty to load them from simple files.
Java Swing is appropriate to generate U.I.elements but we should make sure that it will be
usable in operation. -> Giulio and Veronique will talk with Pal
Anderssen.
If we begin with Java Awt, is it easy to move to Swing afterwards ? -> Mani will
answer that question after the course she is going to attend.
The tool
The tool, that we intend to provide, would generate Java code together with a
configuration file.
Stephen is presently working on a template for SL/BI applications. He also provides
elements customized for SL/BI. This work looks like a subset of our tool. -> Stephen
will make a demonstration to the team.
U.I.facilities
The basic elements will be defined for the next meeting.
Date of Meeting: 11th January 2000
Present: G.Crockford, S.Jackson, M.Jorda Garcia, G.Morpurgo, V.Paris
Planning
The milestones identified at the Project Definition meeting have been reviewed and
slightly modified.
A milestone plan
and a responsibility
chart have been set up.
Technology
We will use a technology independent on the platform and on the language of the software
used below the user interface.
We should remain compatible with the existing environment.
The most probable choice will be Java, usable also on UNIX and Linux operating systems.
Investigation will be done on what might already be used in other divisions at CERN.
Callback Interface
The callback interface could be a new version of Xcreator. which will be looked at
carefully.
This interface will offer a graphical user interface (GUI), coming later.
It should be extensible, for example : adaptable to Swing, allowing the use of XRT
widgets,...
We will bring a list of specifications for the callback interface at the next meeting.
Project Name
A "nickname' for the project should be found (StOpMI ?, OpAccI ?, OpMI2000 ?, ...?)
