Personal tools
You are here: Home
Log in


Forgot your password?
New user?
 

Modified items

All recently modified items, latest first.
Welcome to the User Representation forum by Matthew Jones, last updated: Aug 21, 2008 05:00 PM
Re: Welcome to the User Representation forum by Timothy McPhillips, last updated: Aug 21, 2008 05:00 PM
I'm calling this the User Representation Team in the charter (now posted ) and web pages the way you did in your conversation title, Matt.  Does everyone like the idea of officially changing the name?  It certainly rolls off the tongue a lot better!
Re: Collaboration tools by Timothy McPhillips, last updated: Aug 21, 2008 03:30 PM
Thank you, this is great! Previously Shaun Walbridge wrote: I've added the full message body to <description> element of the RSS feed, let me know if you'd like any further customizations.  
Re: Collaboration tools by Shaun Walbridge, last updated: Aug 21, 2008 03:11 PM
It's a planned feature, but not currently implemented.  The board itself doesn't have any email subscription capabilities, so we're looking at a few things which would allow for messages on other types of content as well (page updates within certain folders, et cetera). Previously Christopher Brooks wrote: Is there anyway to get email for each forum post?  
Re: Collaboration tools by Shaun Walbridge, last updated: Aug 21, 2008 03:08 PM
I've added the full message body to <description> element of the RSS feed, let me know if you'd like any further customizations. Previously Timothy McPhillips wrote: Is it possible to configure the RSS feed to send more, or possibly all, of each forum post?  
Re: Collaboration tools by Christopher Brooks, last updated: Aug 21, 2008 02:42 PM
Is there anyway to get email for each forum post?
Re: Collaboration tools by Timothy McPhillips, last updated: Aug 21, 2008 01:38 PM
Is it possible to configure the RSS feed to send more, or possibly all, of each forum post?
Re: Collaboration tools by Matthew Jones, last updated: Aug 21, 2008 01:29 PM
We could try to increase it a bit without making it too wide.  I also was wondering about how deep the menu should go.  Right now, it drills right down to leaf items, which I find less useful as a navigation tool because it loses top level menu items when it gets too deep. What would people think about fixing it at the site root, and drilling down a maximum of 3-4 levels?
Re: Framework team roadmap by Timothy McPhillips, last updated: Aug 21, 2008 12:48 PM
Another idea.  Looking at the roadmap, I'd like to phrase items here as externally verifiable milestones (e.g., 'a scientist can download a release of kepler, the ppod extension, and the extensions ppod depends on, and use them together without rebuilding Kepler') and less like tasks (for one thing, the task list could be quite long).  Also, for now I suggest we not worry about dependencies between or ordering of milestones.   Sound OK?
Re: Collaboration tools by Timothy McPhillips, last updated: Aug 21, 2008 12:33 PM
The new Plone site design looks amazing!  I had to check the URL when I first saw it this morning. What would you all think of increasing the indenting of nested items in the navigation panel, at the expense of some horizontal screen space?  The default indentation makes it hard to see at a glance what is inside what.  I think if the icons for nested items were aligned with the name of the enclosing item it would be more clear.   By the way, I'm really enjoying using the new tools.  Thanks for doing this!
Re: Framework team roadmap by Timothy McPhillips, last updated: Aug 21, 2008 12:23 PM
Great! Maybe we can use this objective as a way of prioritizing work such as support for actors that depend on 3rd-party jars not included in the Kepler base system (if I understand you correctly)? What would everyone think of shooting for a mini development release of the kernel that includes the first increment of new extensibility features?  The ppod extensions could be targeted to work with that release, then, and we could avoid overriding the kernel jar.
Re: Framework team roadmap by Aaron Schultz, last updated: Aug 21, 2008 11:42 AM
Agreed, this is a good next step.  It should be fairly straight forward as long as there are no dependencies from Kepler to the extensions.  To handle any files that were modified from the kernel you will want to create a custom kernel jar (appropriately labeled) and compile your new files there.  Also, if any of your actors use external jars they will not work since actors are still being loaded with objectmanager and not yet with the new framework.
Re: Collaboration tools by Shaun Walbridge, last updated: Aug 20, 2008 05:56 PM
I agree.  We're currently doing no caching whatsoever, so all content is being served directly by Zope. We can add RAM caches as a short term fix, but in the next few weeks I'd like to used either Varnish or Memcached to cache the static pieces of the pages and dramatically improve performance. If you have particular pages in mind which are painfully slow, let me know and I'll see what I can do. Previously Shawn Bowers wrote: The plone site is starting to look good, but it is awfully slow.  Are there plans to migrate this to a faster machine, or improve performance? I know this is not easy in plone, but I remember there being various ways to optimize performance.   Shawn  
Re: Collaboration tools by Matthew Jones, last updated: Aug 20, 2008 05:54 PM
Some quick thoughts on the questions above.     1) Performance: plone is in a partial development mode -- we can try to make it faster 2) Bullet lists: I haven't had trouble.  We can ask Shaun if this is a common issue 3) The plone site itself could either be a product of the Build and Release team (as a collaboration tool), or the User representation team (as an outreach product).  It really spans those two groups. 4) I'll add Tim and Sean to the group.
Re: Framework team roadmap by Matthew Jones, last updated: Aug 20, 2008 05:47 PM
I think this is a great example, and yes, I think you should go ahead and add it to the roadmap.
Framework team roadmap by Timothy McPhillips, last updated: Aug 20, 2008 04:32 PM
I'd like to reiterate the suggestion I made yesterday about using the ppod extension as a test case for the extension framework.  Specifically, I would like to be able to create a bundle for the ppod extension, and additional bundles for each of the other extensions ppod depends on.  I'd then like to be able load these bundles into a installed instance of Kepler that was neither built  nor installed with these extensions.  The ppod workflows should then work, the actors should appear in the library pane, and the ppod gui customizations should be enabled in the Kepler GUI.    May I add these objectives to the roadmap?    
Extension framework requirements by Timothy McPhillips, last updated: Aug 20, 2008 04:00 PM
I've finished making the changes I suggested on Friday.  I also changed the name of this document from 'Framework Requirements' to 'Extension Framework Requirements' in the expectation that the scope of the Framework Team will be broader than developing the Extension Framework.   I would like to start a new page for a glossary and move the terms defined in the charter and in the current requirements document to this new page.  I suggest we have a table of short definitions with links to more detailed information about each (this will eliminate much of the detail from the three system functions in the requirements document.
Re: Collaboration tools by Timothy McPhillips, last updated: Aug 20, 2008 02:50 PM
I'd like to add two people to the Build & Release team: me and Sean Riddle.  Can Sean have write access to the team area?  Thanks!
Re: Collaboration tools by Timothy McPhillips, last updated: Aug 20, 2008 11:57 AM
The format of the forum message I just posted to the Framework team forum somehow got mangled (second message at https://dev.kepler-project.org/developers/keper-development-forum/framework-team/40940092).   Any idea what's going on?    
Re: Framework teminology by Timothy McPhillips, last updated: Aug 20, 2008 11:55 AM
I propose the following terms for describing the various kinds of archives we want the system to be able to create, and the things archived within them: workflow specification : A definition of a workflow that may or may not include bindings to specific input data sets or parameters.  A.k.a workflow. workflow run : The event of running a workflow on a particular set of input data.  A.k.a. run .   workflow archive :  A packaging of a workflow specification and optionally the actor packages, system extensions, and 3rd-party packages the workflow depends on.   self-contained workflow archive : A workflow archive that includes within in it all the dependencies required for running the workflow in a particular standard distribution of Kepler.   run archive : A packaging of a (possibly self-contained) workflow archive with all of the data bindings and parameter values for a workflow run and optionally including the actual data input to and produced by the run (rather than just references), intermediate data products, and the data dependencies that comprise the provenance of the output data.   self-contained run archive : A run archive that includes, at minimum, a self-contained workflow archive, and all of the data input to and produced by a run.   ad hoc Kepler distribution :  A packaging of one or more self-contained workflow archives with a distribution of Kepler the included workflows can run in.    
 
« Previous 20 items Next 19 items » 1 … 42 43 44 45 46