- From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 22:09:23 +0900
- To: Public Web of Things IG <public-wot-ig@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJ8iq9UH2NypuF5_dG-feV33VEMbmLgLXrUKjb0e+Ay4CxiWAg@mail.gmail.com>
available at:
https://www.w3.org/2016/11/28-wot-minutes.html
also as text below.
Thanks for taking these minutes, Dave!
Kazuyuki
---
[1]W3C
[1] http://www.w3.org/
- DRAFT -
WoT IG - Scripting task force
28 Nov 2016
Attendees
Present
Dave_Raggett, Kaz_Ashimura, Jim_Lim, Daniel_Peintner,
Johannes_Hund, Uday_Davluru, Yingying_Chen, Zoltan_Kis,
Masato_Ohura
Regrets
Chair
Johannes
Scribe
dsr
Contents
* [2]Topics
* [3]Summary of Action Items
* [4]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<scribe> scribenick: dsr
Johannes introduces the agenda for today’s call.
Johannes invites Zoltan to introduce his topic.
Zoltan: it is incomplete and needs feedback.
Johannes: let’s discuss it today, and we can merge the pull
request when you’re ready
Zoltan: I need to do a few more edits before I think it’s ready
for merging
We should discuss the use cases before merging
<jhund> [5]https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/282
[5] https://github.com/w3c/wot/pull/282
Daniel asks how we could relate Zoltan’s document and the older
document on use cases?
Johannes: Zoltan’s is specific to scripting APIs
Zoltan: yes, indeed, it focuses on requirements for the
scripting API
Daniel: we no longer have an editor for the older document, but
we need to consider how to proceed with work on use cases
Zoltan: you could merge the pull request right away if that
makes it easier for the group to provide feedback
(as compared with the diff format of the pull request)
Johannes: any objections [no]
See
[6]https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/scripting/use-cases/R
EADME.md
[6]
https://github.com/w3c/wot/blob/master/scripting/use-cases/README.md
Johannes: please read and comment
Many thanks to Zoltan for providing this
Johannes: I would like to discuss two issues.
<kaz> [7]Issue 240
[7] https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/240
There was discussion about the use of Promises versus providing
call backs versus the use of EventEmitter/EventTarget, and the
upcoming ECMAScript observables.
<kaz> [8]Issue 235
[8] https://github.com/w3c/wot/issues/235
We have heard arguments around these alternatives. NodeJS is
built around EventEmitter.
Johannes: we need a decision and would like to hear opinions
Dave: is this for the next Plugfest?
... we can’t bind the hands of the WG, but we can document our
discusion, and our experience
Zoltan: I suggest we discuss this when we merge the API
proposals. On the server side we tend to use call backs
We don’t know enough to commit to one of the choices right now
The Sensor API spec used EventTarget as they want to get to REC
very soon.
Johannes: so the suggestion is to gather use cases now and
defer a decision
Daniel: I agree with gathering feedback, but we should also
seek feedback from external experts
For instance what is most comfortable for developers, perhaps
via a questionnaire
We need to pick a solution for the next Plugfest, but we should
aim to invite feedback from implementers on the range of
solutions
More complex use cases are likely to provide better information
Kaz: If we want to gather feedback perhaps we need a dedicated
wiki page or GitHub page? We should perhaps decide on some
advanced use cases for the Plugfest.
My second comment is on the decision procedure. The WG isn’t
yet operational, so the discussion now is for the IG’s plans.
On the other hand, once the WG is launched, we need to think
about which part of the discussion should be done by the IG
side and which part should be done by the WG side.
Daniel: there is an open issue for language neutral
descriptions of APIs and this is also relevant here. Let’s
review which features are supported by different languages.
Johannes: my intention here is to encourage implementation
feedback at the Plugfest
Zoltan: on the client we’ve used EventEmitter and callbacks on
the server
We’ve explored the association of events with groups
We should discuss this further
Johannes: some people worry about the feasibility of JavaScript
on small devices, so making it sense to support languages used
on embedded systems.
Recent work suggests that JavaScript can work for quite small
devices
We should look at use cases and gather requirements at a
language independent level
Zoltan: we have experience with JavaScript on small devices. We
need to work with manufacturers on ideas for native support for
scripting
Uday: We should include use cases that cover constrained
devices
we should also consider the architecture document
Johannes: I am not sure what the implications are
Uday: a thing could be anything, and I hope that we do include
constrained devices here.
Johannes: we do, and I wonder what you consider to be the pain
points for constrained devices
<zkis> Majority of Things we expect to be implemented on
constrained devices, so yes, they are first class citizens.
Uday: Michael and Dave noted the role of gateways for mediating
communication between constrained devices
Why can’t we look at constrained API for device to device
interaction?
Johannes: it would be good to see a proposal
<zkis> let's have a github issue about this
Johannes: we’ve had implementations on constrained devices at
previous Plugfests
If you can provide some tangible info that would be very
helpful
<Zakim> dape, you wanted to another issue w.r.t. scripting is
that there are also other scripting languages used, like Lua
Daniel: We should not focus on just JavaScript, and we should
instead look at what scripting languages are used in the
embedded world
Johannes: we could provide bindings to a variety of scripting
languages, e.g. JavaScript, Lua, Python, etc.
Zoltan: we can use language neutral API definitions that
facilitate such bindings, and we need to provide a test
framework for interoperability for the scripting API, and what
tests it should be used with
Kaz: I agree with Zoltan and Daniel about the idea for doing a
survey of popularity of scripting languages.
<kaz> for example, Franca is used for IVI apps by GENIVI guys
The APIs we define should be compatible with existing practice
for these scripting languages
Johannes: I definitely agree with supporting what is out there,
however, when we try to support everything our work will never
finish
We need to consider what to write in the updated WG charter?
My suggestion is to focus on JavaScript as it is native to the
Web, and to also define some C headers as that is applicable to
many languages.
Daniel: I like that idea, but we should leave it open for
plugging in new language bindings
Zoltan: what about using IDL, not necessarily WebIDL?
Dave: I asked Robin Berjon about this a while back. He pointed
out the WebIDL has assumptions that are appropriate for
browsers but perhaps not for other contexts
Johannes: let’s create a GitHub issue to collect the points
<jhund> Action on me to create an issue to cover scoping for
specification of the APIs
<trackbot> Created ACTION-81 - Me to create an issue to cover
scoping for specification of the apis [on Johannes Hund - due
2016-12-05].
Johannes: it is a safe bet to focus on the next Plugfest and
keep up the discussion
Johannes asks everyone to review Zoltan’s proposal (see link
above)
The next scripting task force call is next week
scribe: end of call …
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [9]scribe.perl version
1.148 ([10]CVS log)
$Date: 2016/11/28 13:08:23 $
[9] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[10] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 28 November 2016 13:10:44 UTC