W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wot-wg@w3.org > September 2020

[Scripting] minutes - 24 August 2020

From: Kazuyuki Ashimura <ashimura@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2020 15:52:31 +0900
Message-ID: <875z8qm634.wl-ashimura@w3.org>
To: public-wot-wg@w3.org
available at:
  https://www.w3.org/2020/08/24-wot-minutes.html

also as text below.

Thanks a lot for taking the minutes, Zoltan!

Kazuyuki

---
   [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                               - DRAFT -

                           WoT Scripting API

24 Aug 2020

Attendees

   Present
          Kaz_Ashimura, Cristiano_Aguzzi, Daniel_Peintner,
          Ege_Korkan, Jakob_Weigand, Tomoaki_Mizushima, Zoltan_Kis

   Regrets

   Chair
          Zoltan

   Scribe
          zkis

Contents

     * [2]Topics
         1. [3]Guest
         2. [4]PRs
         3. [5]PR239,
            https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/239
         4. [6]issue # 237
         5. [7]issue #244
     * [8]Summary of Action Items
     * [9]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

   <scribe> scribe: zkis

Guest

   Jacob Weigand is a guest from TUM today, and aware of the W3C
   Patent Policy

PRs

   PR 246, [10]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/246

     [10] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/246

   Zoltan: w3cid to be completed, please add a commit

   Cristiano: will do

PR239, [11]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/239

     [11] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/pull/239

   Cristiano: went through the doc for corrections
   ... a major modification is adding the writeAllProperties()
   method
   ... also, changed an algorithm name

   Zoltan: I agree with the algorithm name

   Daniel: a comment about writeAll: would not spend too much time
   on that since it's going to go away
   ... in the TD spec

   Zoltan: do we know what is in the writeAll Form, since the
   algorithm might depend on that?
   ... what about moving the writeAll commit to a branch and wait
   for the TD spec?

   Cristiano: we could do that

   Daniel: we could do everything with writeMultiple

   Cristiano: though that it was writeMultiple will go away

   Daniel: maybe we will need writeAll in the future, but I also
   think we should wait with adding writeAll

   Cristiano: we could add an editor's note why don't we have it

   Zoltan: right

   Daniel: and say we could use just writeMultiple

   Zoltan: ok, so these PRs will get changes and then merges

issue # 237

   <dape> [12]https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/237

     [12] https://github.com/w3c/wot-scripting-api/issues/237

   <inserted> [13]Scripting API draft - D. Full Web IDL

     [13] https://w3c.github.io/wot-scripting-api/#idl-index

   Jacob: Ege asked to make a demo with the problem
   ... MQTT cannot communicate an error in the subscription
   ... when the server is dropping, the Scripting API does not
   provide an error in the subscription
   ... the next subscribe request should fail
   ... same with longpoll
   ... there is also a race condition

   Zoltan: we have 2 options: a separate object for a subscription
   with an error event, or put the error event on ConsumedThing

   Cristiano: would prefer the first

   Daniel: we could have a generic error (call?)
   ... or an object that can point to new errors

   Ege: we need to know which the subscription the error belonged

   Cristiano: right, which is why prefer the first option

   Daniel: a generic error listener also means the client has to
   filter (also mentioned by Ege)

   Zoltan: so we could revert to a kind of Observable

   Jacob: I thought about adding an error listener to the
   observe() and subscribe()

   Daniel: I see benefit in managing it with a subscribe object
   since we shift complexity
   ... the implementation tracks subscriptions automatically

   Zoltan: Kaz, what was the deadline for publication in last WG
   call? end of September?

   Daniel: I thought it was beginning of September

   Zoltan: we have a lot of changes, we could also make 2
   publications

   Daniel: we should make less publications since implementations
   need to change
   ... node-wot would wait for the revised API

   Kaz: publication time is based on the TF decision
   ... could be done quickly or we can wait for another update and
   publish the document a bit later

   Zoltan: we should go by DP's proposal and adjust the
   publication date

   Kaz: please note that Scripting API is a WG Note for the
   current Charter

   Zoltan: what about versioning the Scripting API itself

   Daniel: not sure will it be a URL or a version string

   Zoltan: do we have a need for an interface file def with a
   given version as a package dependency?

   Ege: for what use case, for telling old or new APIs apart?

   <Ege>
   [14]https://github.com/eclipse/thingweb.node-wot/tree/master/ex
   amples/templates/exposed-thing#change-from-version-06x-to-07x-f
   or-exposed-things

     [14] https://github.com/eclipse/thingweb.node-wot/tree/master/examples/templates/exposed-thing#change-from-version-06x-to-07x-for-exposed-things

   Zoltan: node-wot defines a version and also refers to the
   Scripting API spec it implements

   Daniel: it defines a version right now, it includes TS
   definitions that are also published on npm

   Zoltan: anyway it's doable to include the TR link for Scripting
   from node-wot
   ... we need a label that we can easily connect the two

   Cristiano: I agree, like node-wot is implementing the 0.8 API
   spec.
   ... another issue is that in TS we can add links back to
   definitions

   Zoltan: makes sense

   Daniel: the problem is that if you update the spec we need the
   permalinks

issue #244

   Zoltan: there is validation for consume() and not for the
   construction

   Cristiano: it should be the other way around

   Zoltan: constructor is just a JS object constructor
   ... validation needs a factory method

   Cristiano: validation could be done synchronously

   Daniel: consume() and constructor should do the same

   Zoltan: looks like that is possible
   ... ok, so let's change the issue name and track it there

   Daniel: we have similar issue for produce()

   Zoltan: let's continue the discussion next time

   Ege: a quick question, for reviewing created a fork and empty
   branch, should I make the PR in the Scripting?

   Zoltan: AOB

   adjourned

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by
    David Booth's [15]scribe.perl version ([16]CVS log)
    $Date: 2020/08/26 10:50:07 $

     [15] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [16] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Monday, 7 September 2020 06:52:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 7 September 2020 06:52:37 UTC